Perhaps you know something I don’t, but I haven’t read anything thus far that indicates that McCusker knew she was pregnant at the time she was hired.

I also haven’t read anything that indicates that she intended to continue having sex. As I stated in an earlier comment, for all we know, from the time her child was conceived, she could have made a decision to embrace a life of Christian chastity.

If there’s more to this story that I’m not aware of, I will welcome the clarification.

If she did not want to abide by the morality of the Catholic church then she should have sought employment elsewhere.

I think Feminists For Life picked the wrong battle this time. McCusker willfully lied to the school.

That she decided to do the right thing and keep the baby is one thing I appreciate about this whole thing, that’s for sure. And it indicates her willingness to take responsibility for her actions. But the consequences of her actions go beyond the pregnancy; these include the risks regarding her employment, which include losing her job due to clear guidelines she is aware of. Hence, difficult and seemingly unfair as it is, accepting to be terminated from the school ought to be part of “taking responsibility for her actions” in this case. That’s the way I see it.

This would cause them to think more seriously about sex outside of marriage knowing that if they were found out they would have to get married.

Perhaps the fellow isn’t around anymore. I agree it would be best for the baby for them to marry so that the child has a stable environment if in fact they are compatible. But, Quinn, I’m not sure the solution to every out of wed-lock pregnancy is marriage.

Is she totally unwilling to marry the guy?

I have to come back to a point I first alluded to in my post. This mother actually has chosen to take responsibility for her actions by choosing to give birth to her baby. She could have chosen to abort her baby, and no one at the school would have ever known, and she would still have her job.

The decision to engage in premarital sex — a decidedly irresponsible one, to be sure — was made before she was hired. She can’t “undo” that decision, but faced with the consequences of that irresponsible decision, she has chosen to do the most responsible thing she can.

I am letting the issue of your legal positivism, in this specific case, supporting pro-abort judge Alito for nomination to the Supreme Court until later on when the sourt takes up the Partial-Birth Abortion ban. I have every reason to expect that the court will rule to not uphold the ban.

I will, however, continue to point out that you and Eric, James Dobson and FOTF, Gary Bauer and Jay Sekulow are LEGAL POSITIVISTS and that your legal positivism is the a mirror image of the reasoning that the Nazi judges used when sentencing Jews to death. Basicly, they had to obey the Supreme Judge.

If I am mistaken about your being a legal positivist, then explain yourself well either online or during a discussion on Bob Enyart Live http://www.kgov.com

I think it has to do with helping the person realize and take responsibility for the consequences of her actions. And, much as it seems cruel, setting that as an example to others that the school means business.

Like I said, assisting the teacher in other ways would be good. But I personally believe there are cases wherein an institution ought not to compromise as regards policies (this being one of them).

An afterthought: a teacher who has been serving a school for 20 yrs, for example, and who has demonstrated loyalty, competence and other such qualities would probably be treated differently from one who only started working a month ago. I’m referring to the assistance that the school would extend to her — whether or not it decides to fire her.

What do you think?

I sure hope the issue is not being muddled up more by my comments!

Remember, that at Nuremburg, the Nazi judges used the same excuse of obeying the Supreme Judge when they sentenced Jews to death. Thats the same excuse you have used when defending Alito’s pro-abortion decisions such as stirking down the partial birth abortion ban.

It cannot be claimed that Alito’s “hands were tied” in his pro-abortion decisions he gave for Blackwell v Knoll, Alexander v Whitman, PP v NJ Atty Gen or Chen v. Aschcroft. And there was nothing pressuring him to refine the new “undue burden” standard so that the Supreme Court could later use it to uphold abortion in PP v Casey.

As for reducing fornication and the consequences that come from fornication, the law I am proposing would have the greatest impact at reducing sex outside of marriage and the many negative consequences that arise from it. They will think much more seriously about engaging in any sex outside of marriage once they know that they could very likely end up married for the rest of their lives. Re-criminalizing adultery would also help a lot.

If you think you know of a better method, then please share. Check out this discussion about whether or not we should re-criminalize adultery if you want a better grasp on the topic http://kgov.com/bel/2005/20050621-BEL122.mp3

You know, Quinn, I’m disappointed that you insist on beating the dead horse of the Alito nomination, but the personal tone of your comment to John is totally unacceptable.

Clearly, no school official is in any position to judge the state of her immortal soul. For all we know, following her child’s conception — which, it bears repeating, occurred before she was hired — she could have made a decision to embrace chastity.

Sunnyday’s comments are well thought out, and very much on the mark. They touch upon a much larger issue: the need for Catholic schools to adopt a much more scrutinous hiring process for faculty members. There is an urgent need for higher standards, but I don’t see how firing an unmarried pregnant teacher is a step in the right direction.

Quinn — regarding your desire to force couples who have premarital sex to get married, I don’t know where to begin, other than to say that this is an extraordinarily ill-advised idea.

Do you know if McCusker read the contract before she signed on for the pre-school teacher position? If she did, that would give the impression that she had sought employment from that school with the intent to challenge the reason for her later firing (in accordance with the contract she signed) with the help of the ACLU in New York since she had conceived PRIOR to her teaching there.

I fully support that school’s decision in taking an unambiguous stand against fornication and having children outside of marriage. That fornicator can find employment at another pre-school that does not care that she is a fornicator. There are plenty of pre-schools like that in New York. I’m sure that if she doesn’t wallow in victimhood that she will find employment just fine.

I want to see adultery re-criminalized and I want to make marriage mandatory for those caught fornicating. They must get married without any possibility of divorce. Strictly enforcing those laws would do much more good than 1,000 pro-life or abstinance ministries combined could do.

“Here I’m being persecuted because I’m pro-life having my baby, and they fire me for it,” the teacher says but in my opinion, that sounds like some justification for illicit behavior. I agree with Eric; being pro-life goes beyond allowing one’s baby to be born. It involves the totality of the way a person conducts his/her life.

Two things: perhaps the school (and other institutions for that matter) can beef up the screening process for candidates for employment so as to determine if these are the ones they are looking for, before they are hired. That way, any discrepancies between the beliefs that one professes to live by and the way these beliefs are translated to daily living can be more easily noticed.

Second, firing an employee when finances are very much needed does send an unpleasant message — more so if the the institution is one that professes fidelity to teaching the Gospel of life. What about extending some assistance to the person and her baby? After all, letting her go and helping her out (with cash, facilitating prenatal care, referrals, etc.) are not incompatible. I understand it may lead to further complications, but I was thinking it’s one way to keep spreading God’s love to those who most need it, even when circumstances would have others possibly misinterpret the move.

It’s unfair to place children in this situation. Either their respect for the teacher—and therefore the conditions necessary for learning—will be undermined, or their respect for Church teaching will be undermined. Moreover, every effort should be made to give parents the right to decide when to deal with these sorts of issues.

The teacher’s claim that she’s being “pro-life” rings a little flat. To truly be pro-life is also to be chaste. Also, to be fired from a job for quite clearly failing to live up to the terms of one’s employment is not to be “persecuted.”

I think Feminists for Life should fight some other battle. A friend of mine was in exactly the same situation; her solution was to marry her boyfriend. This worked out well.

The statement that she was being persecuted because she was pro-life is ridiculous. She is being persecuted because she sets a bad example. If you could fire teachers for having abortions we certainly should do that too.

Joe