First Amendment under fire in CA

Leave a comment

The mother of a seventh-grader in California is suing her daughter’s school for their response to her wearing a pro-life t-shirt to school. The shirt had the word “ABORTION” in large block letters at the top. Below were two pictures of a developing fetus in utero, then a black square, with the caption, “Growing…growing…gone.”

Upon seeing the t-shirt, a school staffer forced the girl to throw away her partially-consumed breakfast and report to the principal’s office, where she was forced to remove the t-shirt and surrender it to school officials for the remainder of the day. The school claims their actions were justified because the girl’s t-shirt violated the district dress code, which forbids clothing with “suggestion of tobacco, drug or alcohol use, sexual promiscuity, profanity, vulgarity, or other inappropriate subject matter.”


How do pictures of a baby in utero fall into those categories?

Even the local Planned Parenthood chapter did not protest the t-shirt; their Vice President for Public Affairs had the good sense to admit that, “Even offensive speech is protected as long as it doesn’t impinge upon the rights of others.” (I’m still not sure how pictures of a baby are offensive, but at least they got the free speech part right).

Further details can be found here.

Sadly, I’m pretty sure that had this been a pro-choice, pro-gay, or pro-any other part of the left agenda t-shirt, it would have been allowed and even celebrated as an example of “tolerance,” “open-mindedness,” or another leftist buzzword. Here’s an idea, folks – unless you can be tolerant of everyone’s point of view, you’re not tolerant at all. You might even be violating their First Amendment rights.


One-sided criticism of George Tiller’s murder

1 Comment

The recent murder of late-term abortion doctor George Tiller has me saddened, but also a little confused. I pray for his family and loved ones in this tragic time, and I certainly do not think any killing in the name of the pro-life movement makes any sense whatsoever.

My confusion, however, stems from the fact that many public figures have been quick to denounce this “heinous and violent” act (to quote President Obama), but fail to denounce the equally heinous and violent act Dr. Tiller committed every time he aborted a baby. This demonstrates, even without a direct statement, exactly where the president stands in light of the unborn. Despite his pro-life claims, he seems to be saying that while the murder of a fully developed human being is heinous and violent (which it is), the murder of less-than-fully developed infants is…something else?

more on Notre Dame

Leave a comment

This article says the same thing I was trying to say in the previous blog post, except much more clearly!

the President’s paygrade

Leave a comment

Surely there has been a great flurry of blogging, etc. about President Obama’s appearance at yesterday’s commencement exercises at Notre Dame. What a dramatic dichotomy between Notre Dame’s Catholic foundations (it being the largest Catholic university in the US) and the president’s stated support for abortion rights, embryonic stem cell research, and other anti-life legislation.

My issue with his appearance at a publicly recognized Catholic institution (and with him in general!) is such:  during his campaign, Obama stated that decisions about when human life begins were “above my pay grade.” If that is the case, then why does he continue to render such decisions?? If he does not feel that he can correctly determine when life begins, then I should hope he would err on the side of caution and protect life in ALL its forms, rather than supporting the unjustified taking of human life (AKA abortion) and vowing to make it even more accessible than it already is in our society.

There is no “decision” as to when human life begins – it is an absolutely knowable occurrence.  What we can decide is whether or not to protect human life in any and every form.  Despite Obama’s claims to the contrary, he has clearly made his decision on this matter (evident in his support of the Freedom of Choice Act, among other pieces of legislation) – I guess it’s not as far above his pay grade as he would have us believe.

I would rather someone come out clearly on one side of an issue (even if I don’t agree with their stance) than merely equivocating for the sake of political expediency and then hoping we don’t notice when he stops talking out of both sides of his mouth.