Skip to comments.ADF Intervenes, School Gives Wearer of Pro-Life Sweatshirts 'Green Light'
Posted on 11/05/2005 11:11:51 AM PST by wagglebee
A Georgia high school has decided against censoring a student's pro-life expression on his clothing.
Senior Brian Ramirez was recently forced to serve an in-school suspension for wearing sweatshirts with messages such as "Abortion is homicide" and "She is a child, not a choice." The student also was penalized with a zero grade for each day's lab missed while in suspension, and informed that for each day he continued to wear clothing bearing a pro-life message he would remain on suspension.
But after the Alliance Defense Fund intervened on his behalf and threatened to file a federal lawsuit against the school, Ramirez was allowed to wear the shirts without detention. His ADF attorney, David Cortman, says officials at Maxwell High School of Technology in Lawrenceville acknowledged their error -- promptly.
"It's always interesting to see how schools respond when they're called on the carpet on these things," Cortman says, "but the good part about the response [is that] it was very quick in coming -- it was pretty much immediately after we sent our letter."
According to the attorney, the school basically said while it has established policies that require no material to be obscene or offensive, Ramirez's sweatshirts did not violate any of those policies. Cortman adds that the school stated, in so many words -- "We were mistaken. We'll erase everything from your record." The lawyer believes the school was right to admit its mistake -- and to avoid possible allegations of maintaining a double standard.
"Whether it's done out of ignorance or whether it's done intentionally, the problem here is you have students in Brian's school who are wearing shirts promoting drugs, that are sexually suggestive -- and of course the administration never says anything about those," he says.
"But the minute someone stands up for life and has a T-shirt that someone may not agree with, they're the ones who are singled out and put into in-school suspension."
Cortman says schools should be educating their students about the First Amendment -- not violating it. "It should be clear by now that the First Amendment does not contain exemptions against unpopular speech," he adds.
Administrators had told Ramirez that the pro-life messages were offensive to certain teachers at the school.
I don't really care if Marxists are offended. What I do find offensive is the 40 million+ infants that have been butchered in this country over the last three decades.
I would be inclined to say that a shirt showing an aborted fetus would probably be inappropriate to wear in in school (although I strongly believe that these images, however upsetting they may be to some, should be seen by high school students). Short of that, I fail to see the problem. What I find most alarming is the fact that it is now "fashionable" for students to wear shirts with pictures of Che Guevara, who personally murdered hundreds and was responsible for the death and torture of thousands; however, I have yet to see wear schools are banning these shirts.
Whenever they spout the buzz word "privacy", retort that what they really want is the "right to secretly abort."
Don't let the "privacy" buzz word stand.
I question the findings of such a study. I am passionatly pro-life; however, I do not believe it is the federal government's role to ever "outlaw" abortion. All that would be done by overturning Roe v. Wade is to return jurisdiction to the individual states and they could either leave it alone or make it illegal. Many of the "blue states" like Californian and New York would certainly keep it legal. The difference is that for the first time in decades, abortion would be out from control of unelected federal judges.
"I do not believe it is the federal government's role to ever "outlaw" abortion."
Are you saying this becaue you believe there should be no federal laws outlawing murder? Or, because of the unique circumstances of abortion...i.e. the victim is inside a woman, that this should prevent the feds from becoming involved?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
-- Amendment 10
This is a matter of state sovereignty. If we decide that it is the role of the federal government to begin making laws such as these, the entire purpose of having individual sovereign states becomes meaningless.
Anyone in the school administration now serving a similar penalty to those imposed on this innocent young man?
Perhaps a suspension without pay is in order.
Remember in the 80's when Wham! first came out? George Michael wore that "Choose Life" t-shirt in the video. Lots of kids were wearing that on their t-shirts soon after. Where was the outrage THEN!
And the ACLU was where on this case?
>> a sick circle of life...
A believe the term is "dans macabre".
...We were mistaken.
But because God was not included with the Pro-Life statement, its OK. I sometimes wonder if these lefties are more anti-God than anti-life.
Do you feel the same way about homosexual marriage or polygamy?
A homosexual or polygamous marriage in one state would become an issue if the people moved to a different state. This would clearly become an issue in terms of the "full faith and credit" clause in Article IV of the Constitution.
As much as I would wish for every state to ban abortion, a woman would be allowed to travel to a state which allows abortion. The abortion would occur in one state and the other state's laws would not apply. In simpler terms, some states allow the sale and use of fireworks while others don't, there is no prohibition from someone travelling to a different state and using fireworks there.
Doesn't matter. Just look at what the 9th out west said. WE don't matter, WE cannot think. WE are incapable of deciding what is best for our children. WE have NO rights over the public school system. Thank The LORD my kids are grown and gone.
If stare decisis is the game the homos want to play, they'll lose; Federal courts have decided on numerous occasions that a provision in one state's constitution absolutely trumps another state's statutory permissions, within the former state's jurisdiction. It can hardly be otherwise, for, were it so, any state legislature could void any other state's constitution in whole or in part by merely passing a statute.
The technical term for such an eventuality, given some sort of ex jure barbaro voiding process like this, is chaos.
I agree. However, to compare state sovereignty with homosexual marriage with abortion, is a non-issue. Abortion could easily be determined by the individual states.
So, if Roe V. Wade were to be overturned, it would then go back to the states. This would be better than nothing of course, but I would like to see a Constitutional amendment that would protect innocent human life. If it goes back to the states, then unborn babies in some states would not have a right to life while those in other states would. I think something as sacred as defenseless human life should be equally protected under the Constitution. That's my two cents worth.
And the ACLU was where on this case?
Helping the liberal teachers/administrators.
I do think it would be possible to pass an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Thanks - just sneaking onto FR for a minute, will ping the list later.
You're on top of things, aren't you!
Yeah, well somebody needs to do YOUR job!!! -:)
And so it should. The language of the 10th Amendment is perfectly plain. Not even the lawyer class can ''misinterpret'' it; all they can do is ignore it...which they've done for -- frankly -- I don't know how long.
If Roe and Casey are reversed, as you say, it will return the question of abortion to the states where it was earlier.
The situation when Roe v. Wade was pronounced was that almost every state outlawed abortion but a few, such as New York, were in the process of legalizing it. We will not necessarily return to that situation, since people have had decades to get used to the idea of legalized abortion as "normal," whereas previously they had had centuries to get used to the idea that abortion was a shameful crime.
So, it would be fought out in the states. Probably in most conservative states, most abortions will be outlawed, and in some states all abortions. Possibly the laws will revert to what was in effect prior to Roe, possibly lawyers will argue that the old laws no longer apply and that if people want abortion outlawed the matter must be revisited.
There is at least some possibility that a constitutional right can be found to say that abortion is a crime. The great analogy is slavery. When the constitution was written it gave all men equal rights, but it didn't say "women" and it winked at slavery. Later, it came to be seen that the right to equality should include women and slaves. But just to make sure, amendments were passed to confirm it.
It depends on the definition of "natural person." it is now agreed that women and children and former slaves are natural persons with all constitutional rights. It COULD be decided that unborn children also are persons--as, indeed, science says they are. They are human, they are living, they are unique persons in their own right.
The constitutional right of an unborn child to life would certainly have to be fought out, however, and is unlikely to be asserted anytime soon.