Skip to comments.Teacher Claims Catholic School Fired Her Over IVF
Posted on 04/26/2012 8:35:52 AM PDT by Abathar
FORT WAYNE, Ind. -- A Fort Wayne teacher who claims she was fired from a Roman Catholic school for using in vitro fertilization to try to get pregnant is suing in a case that could set up a legal showdown over reproductive and religious rights.
Emily Herx's lawsuit accuses the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend and St. Vincent de Paul School in Fort Wayne of discrimination for her firing last June.
Herx, 31, of Hoagland, Ind., said that the church pastor told her she was a "grave, immoral sinner" and that a scandal would erupt if anyone learned she had undergone in vitro fertilization, or IVF.
The Roman Catholic Church shuns IVF, which involves mixing egg and sperm in a laboratory dish and transferring a resulting embryo into the womb. Herx said she was fired despite exemplary performance reviews in her eight years as a language arts teacher.
Legal experts said Herx's case illustrates a murky area in the debate over separation of church and state that even the U.S. Supreme Court has failed to clearly address.
(Excerpt) Read more at theindychannel.com ...
It would be like if I went to teach at a Jewish school, I wouldn’t expect to bring bacon cheeseburgers for lunch
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Other than raised eyebrows and maybe an admonishment and you being ‘instructed’ it was not in the best interest etc,
I think the REAL problem would be when you insist the school cafeteria serve BCB’s because it is YOUR right to have them.
Then you are expecting the food handlers and school to go against their principles and beliefs.
That is what “THEY” are doing to or trying to force US to do on a daily basis.
Maybe she was letting them know so that they could start looking for her replacement while she took maternity leave?
If she told him in confession, he could not have taken any public action without violating the laws of the Church.
If she told him outside of confession that’s a different story. It would be an unusual priest who would fire someone who wasn’t making a public scandal of this, who wasn’t telling a lot of people.
“... looking for her replacement while she took maternity leave”.
The article makes it sound like she was attempting to get pregnant via IVF (that she wasn’t pregnant yet). If she had gotten pregnant, why tell them “how”? She could have simply told them that she was expecting in December and be done with it. Neither here nor there but IVF has no guarantee. It isn’t a done deal simply because you had IVF...
“... making a public scandal of this...”
Reminds me somewhat of the woman who told the priest that she was a Buddhist and in a lesbian relationship. The priest didn’t give her Communion. The woman was then outraged. If this woman had simply kept private business (and I feel conceiving a child with your husband as private) then this would be a non-issue. IMHO.
Scripture contradicts you but one can easily surmise that a moral relativist like yourself doesn't place much importance on Scripture.
Maybe she was thinking positively and perhaps was looking into her benefits that are available for pregnant women?
If she wasn’t married, then I imagine someone would ask something about the father, or even if she was married, someone probably would ask how happy her husband must be or something similar.
Somethings I do, somethings I don’t.
Moot point since she isn't Catholic.
The school found out that Herx was using IVF because she told them about it when she used sick days for the treatments, according to the lawsuit. School officials didn't indicate until later that there was a problem, the lawsuit says.
Sounds like the "school officials" need a period of intense remedial instruction in the Catechism. Makes one wonder if they aren't Catholic too.
The Parish wouldn’t have known she was having infertility issues unless she told them. She could have simply said that they were hoping to start a family (not a lie) and wanted to know the maternity benefits. I know many women who simply tell way too much info about their lives. Keeping certain aspects of one’s life private has a respectability to it. IMHO.
Tacit confirmation that you are a moral relativist.
I think two things are hard for us Catholics to convey. One is that we hold human life to have very great intrinsic dignity. And the other is that we think, hold onto your hats, things are what they are.
From the first arises the idea that the means whereby which God has ordained that humans are ‘made’ also have very great dignity. The two people engaged in baby-making are themselves creatures of dignity, and the action can provide the locus where God repeats the wonder of creating a “rational soul,” and therefore has very great dignity.
Further, because humans are not a body + a soul but one “ensouled” creature, their proper actions are done with both will and body involved. So intimate an activity as sexual intercourse properly involves a commitment of will as intense and intimate as the commitment of bodies. Thus the essential problem with fornication is that it rends body from will and fragments the human being.
Therefore, even if no embryos were killed and if semen could be acquired without masturbation, IVF would be wrong because of a similar rending.
This may be hard to grasp because we have cheapened sex. But when we fell in love, and when we “made love” at least once we recognized the miracle that we can breed like sheep, but with a great deal more enjoyment than they seem to have, AND we can “mean it” in a way they never could.
As to the second. What I mean by “things are what they are” is sort of like this. When we read that the wealthy Romans at their banquets made themselves vomit so they we could eat more we think not only of the piercing smell of vomit or the pathos of the starving poor, but of the perversion of separating the pleasure of conviviality from nutrition. And we recognize that even if we could supply healthy nutrition by the means of IV drips and NG tubes, the “plene esse” of nutrition for humans is to eat and drink, optimally with friends.
Similarly, we have little difficulty saying that the heart is “for” circulation. If we could somehow separate circulation from the other functions of the heart (I can't think of any) we'd still say it “just ain't right.”
So, if I've established at least the idea (whether you agree with it or not) that sexual intercourse is imbued, we might even say “demands”, a very great dignity
AND IF I have sketched the notion of things being what they are so that the “plene esse” of intercourse is a new human miracle,
THEN I think I have sketched a ‘system’ in which it would be wrong to separate procreation from intercourse.
Tax-chick: How'd I do?
You don’t think she talked with anyone about it? Maybe she’s like those women you know?
I don’t believe I ever said I wasn’t.
I just dont remember the part where God said IVF was a sin.
Reason #856 to avoid the “Catholic” skools. Every teacher at my school is Catholic and completely capable of assimilating and conveying Catholic doctrine.
Shoot. Now I want a bacon cheeseburger.
You might want to refresh your memory about what happened to Onan.
Give that woman a cookie!
What part of our free-will should God take away to make the world more peaceful?
If you say so. Personally, I’d say if the technology exists, then that means it’s capability exists in a physical universe God Himself created. This almost seems on the same level as Christian Scientists, but to each his own.
I don’t believe we truly have any. But we do need to believe we do, so we can have laws.
I believe everything that happens, is God’s plan. He knows what will happen.
"the rise of Protestantism" - Which also has a bloody history. Oddly enough, you chose to gloss over that fact.
Next time, do more than just a little research.
Well now, when did I say Protestantism wasn't bloody? And as for that, the Protestants were bloody and the Catholics weren't? LOL - then who exactly were the Catholics killing? And oh yes, besides killing the Protestants, they killed the "pagans" in every country they went. In Central and South America, that added up to how many millions? Or do you consider that the fault of the Spanish, even though they acted on Catholic orders? How convenient, since they replaced ALL of the holy sites there with Catholic Churches (what a coincidence). And, of course, there's the Cathars - or there were the Cathars, ha ha.. And then, let's see, there were a few incidents in the Holy Land, IIFC, but those were Muslims, so I guess the Catholics-killing-Muslims counterd the Muslims-killing-Catholics there. And then of course all of the female healers and female spiritual traditions... er, witches. And then, of course, the Inquisition. Other than that, though, yeah, we're pretty much looking at a spotless record for Catholicism, aren't we?
Next time, think of something to say other than a bumper-sticker insult backup up by a one-word pronouncement of claimed fact. You see, it's such a well known historical pattern, people might identify you as Catholic by that alone.
Just because you know that your child will fall down while learning to walk or ride a bicycle, does than mean that it is a plan that you want?
No, but then again I’m not God, nor am I privy to His plan. I doubt I could comprehend it if I was.
You glossed over it ... didn't mention it at all.
I think the bloody history of the so-called reformation (by which I mean the blood on the hands of the so-called reformers) is a little too important to leave out of a discussion like this.
A half truth is worse than an outright falsehood.
The rest of your paragraph, regardless of its veracity in so far as it goes, is just a bigger, more detailed half-truth.
people might identify you as Catholic by that alone.
That's interesting. I can't tell whether you're a protestant, a pagan, or an atheist ... maybe there isn't much difference among the three.
I can be certain, however, that you're a teller of half-truths.
So do I. Zucchini soup is a poor substitute.
SCOTUS already back the Lutheran Church in its firing of a teacher (who was also a ‘commissioned’ minister in that faith). While the facts of the 2 teachers situations are different, ultimately I would imagine SCOTUS would uphold any church’s right to hire teachers in its schools who adhere to the faith.
I also don’t understand why this particular teacher thought she had to ‘share’ her IVF with the priest or anyone at the school. Couldn’t that have been kept private between her, her husband and her doctors?
Interestingly, the Catholic Church has just as bloody a history as Islam. But the RCC is based ont he teaching of Jesus, which overcame its internal corruptiona and forced it (at least nominally) to drop the barbarism.The Catholic Church was bloody in spite of the teachings of Jesus. The Islam religion is bloody because of the teachings of Mohammed.
Thank you ... I’ll enjoy the cookie in my mind, although it almost seems like there’s something wrong with that when one could actually chew and swallow a real cookie!
You know what I’m really craving on the 17-Day Diet? Bread and wine! When I’m craving the Eucharist as much as Italian bread and Argentinian Merlot, I’ll consider the diet a success!
That is truly as well as I have ever heard it put.
Most likely she wasn’t expecting them to have that attitude toward IVF. She probably told them not even expecting a reaction, they told her it’s a sin. She, in her 21st century “I want what I want when I want it” mentality told them she was going to do it anyway. They fired her.
She can’t believe it, and is now filling a lawsuit.
The process of IVF requires that a number of eggs be fertilized outside the womb. The hope is that one of the embryos (the fertilized eggs) will work. In the process, the other embryos are either frozen or destroyed.
Since life begins at conception, and conception is defined as the moment when fertilization occurs, it is just as morally wrong to destroy an embryo outside the womb as it is inside the womb.
In other words, the end result of IVF is exactly the same as an abortion.
The Church also teaches that the only way for conception to be valid is in the context of a sacramental marriage. The sex act must be open to conception, and have a unifying effect as well.
IVF lacks the unifying effect of the sexual act between a man and a woman.
Hope that helps.
Thanks. I appreciate that. And I do believe it sincerely.
But I did make a grammatical error.
I should have said “The Islamic religion is bloody...” or “Islam is bloody...”
(Not a big deal, I know. Just wanted to point it out.)
Or you could say, “Moslems are bloody,” but then one expects an adjective to follow the adverb “bloody.”
It’s a funny thing about our present intellectual culture (if one may call it that): a person can read a very intelligent, logically coherent, even eloquent explanation of a complex issue; an explanation that is accessible to natural reason as well as to religious belief ... and that person can dismiss the whole thing with the single word, “Personally ...”.
IVF babies risk major diseases
Polish Cardinal, Former Secretary to Pope JPII: Politicians, Like Pilate, Kill the Truth of the Life of the Unborn
Bishop criticizes reproductive technologys procreation without sex
Excommunication for deliberate embryo destruction?
Catholic School Teacher Fired for Having In Vitro
Vatican Summit Looks at Selecting Embryos
62-year-old Redding woman gives birth to 12th child
Actress Brooke Shields kills 140 of her very own Children by undergoing 7 IVF Treatments
Clinic Mix-Up Sparks Fears over IVF H
Well, I was trying to be polite, so fine.
That policy and the thought behind it is stupid. Makes me glad, yet again, that I’m not Catholic and beholden to such nonsense.
I love the way you addressed all the important points and showed why they were incorrect. It's typical of those who think killing unborn children is okay to simply say "stupid" and walk away, though.
So, they fired her for being guilty of murder for hire. Sounds like a valid reason to fire someone as far as I’m concerned.
Describing dead babies as nonsense does more to illuminate the hollowness of your soul than an autobiography would.
Or an adjective in front of “Moslems”.
“The process of IVF requires that a number of eggs be fertilized outside the womb. The hope is that one of the embryos (the fertilized eggs) will work. In the process, the other embryos are either frozen or destroyed.
“Since life begins at conception, and conception is defined as the moment when fertilization occurs, it is just as morally wrong to destroy an embryo outside the womb as it is inside the womb.
“In other words, the end result of IVF is exactly the same as an abortion.
“The Church also teaches that the only way for conception to be valid is in the context of a sacramental marriage. The sex act must be open to conception, and have a unifying effect as well.
“IVF lacks the unifying effect of the sexual act between a man and a woman.
“Hope that helps.”
Very well put. It’s sad that so many Roman Catholics and Protestants alike don’t understand this. I have some Southern Baptist friends who are very conservative and prolife but seem to have a cognitive dissonance when it comes to IVF.
That would work, too.
But, IVF does exactly the opposite, it enables life where the mother may, through no fault of her own, be unable to conceive. >>>
actually, it’s simple, first one needs to understand the ivf procedure and that life begins at conception. What the ivf procedure does is create many lives at one time in a petri dish, then some of those many lives are inserted into the woman knowing that most if not all those embryos will die. It’s a gamble. And if one or more live, then the option of selective reduction/abortion comes about. The remaining human life created in the petri dish will remain in a frozen gulag for life, frozen in liquid nitrogen. Either used to future use or to stay there for ever. There are over 400,000 babies in liquid nitrogen in England.
“Through no fault of her own” is a bit tenuous, too. In many cases, infertility is due to a history of contraception, abortion, and STDs. Then there are those who have no personal male participant, and those who are postmenopausal.
I also don't like them destroying fertilized eggs that the mother does not use.
No matter what you think of Octomom, she did carry all 8 to term and did use all eggs that were fertilized.
You are a rare gem in this increasingly angry, hostile forum.
Which part is stupid? Are things NOT what they are? Are humans not imbued with great dignity? Or is there part of the development that is stupid?
In what way does it resemble Christian Science? We think infertility is real and sad and we don’t think it can be cured by changing how one thinks.
We’re not anti-technology. But the whole idea of sin is that we CAN do stuff we shouldn’t do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.