cnn: Teacher who was fired after fertility treatments sues diocese

[Thiebear]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/26/us/indiana-in-vitro-lawsuit/index.html

(CNN) -- A teacher at a Catholic school in Indiana is suing the diocese where she worked after being fired because the in vitro fertilization treatments she received were considered against church teachings.

Emily Herx, a former English teacher at St. Vincent de Paul School in Fort Wayne, filed a federal lawsuit against the school and the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend.

She says in the suit filed Friday that she was discriminated against in 2011 after the school's pastor found out that she had begun treatments with a fertility doctor, according to the complaint.

Herx says the school's priest called her a "grave, immoral sinner" and told her she should have kept mum about her fertility treatments because some things are "better left between the individual and God," the complaint said.

"I didn't think I was doing anything wrong," Herx told CNN on Thursday. "I had never had any complaints about me as a teacher."

My favorite quote was: Wasn't Jesus a product of in vitro fertilization? (Those technical people need not respond, just funny).

[Slateman]

Uh ... How did you not know you were violating Catholic doctrine? Ugh ... I'm convinced that most Catholics know nothing about their chosen religion ....

[Larry]

Not a lawyer, But I don't think she's got a chance.

The impression I get is that churches basically have License From God to "discriminate" against anybody they want to.

IMO, you can argue about whether they should have that immunity from the law. (I think they should). Or whether they should use that power as often as they do. (I think they shouldn't.) But I don't think you can argue that legally, they have that right.

[twa]

the churches position is rather clear

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20120425/BLOGS01/120429699

"The Diocese has clear policies requiring that teachers in its schools must, as a condition of employment, have a knowledge of and respect for the Catholic faith, and abide by the tenets of the Catholic Church as those tenets apply to that person. The Diocese requires that its teachers serve as moral exemplars. Those requirements, and others, are expressly incorporated into Diocesan teacher contracts."

[Bang]

Take your little miracle and get lost.

~Bang

[SkinInsite]

While pharmacies can't fire pharmacists for not filling birth control prescriptions.

[elkabong82]

the churches position is rather clear

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20120425/BLOGS01/120429699

"The Diocese has clear policies requiring that teachers in its schools must, as a condition of employment, have a knowledge of and respect for the Catholic faith, and abide by the tenets of the Catholic Church as those tenets apply to that person. The Diocese requires that its teachers serve as moral exemplars. Those requirements, and others, are expressly incorporated into Diocesan teacher contracts."

some churches used to/do frown on interracial marriage and marrying outside of one's faith. Should they be allowed to fire any of those violators? Churches get tax exemptions, the least they can do is respect employment laws. Ironic that the priest said it was between the individual and God, but then acts in a completely different way

[Thiebear]

the churches position is rather clear

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20120425/BLOGS01/120429699

"The Diocese has clear policies requiring that teachers in its schools must, as a condition of employment, have a knowledge of and respect for the Catholic faith, and abide by the tenets of the Catholic Church as those tenets apply to that person. The Diocese requires that its teachers serve as moral exemplars. Those requirements, and others, are expressly incorporated into Diocesan teacher contracts."

There are Catholic teachings that say you can't manually insert your husbands seed into the egg and put it into the womb?

Its exactly the same pieces parts? and has exactly the same results correct? Which part is 'immoral'

I've read some have concerns, i've never read that it was not allowed in writing anywhere. Must have missed that one.

I did read once though that forgiveness was big with the faithful. So was that whole love the sinner, hate the sin?

Catholics should treat women quite a bit better if they ever expect to be taken seriously.

[LadySkinsFan]

Religious organizations are the only organizations in the United States that are allowed to discriminate on issue they wish, all the while receiving a tax exemption, not only on income but on property taxes and probably sales taxes as well.

It's time to take away the tax exemption from religious organizations, especially those that insert themselves into the political process. And that goes if even one congregation/parish inserts itself into the political process, the whole organization loses the tax exemption.

[twa]

There are Catholic teachings that say you can't manually insert your husbands seed into the egg and put it into the womb?

Its exactly the same pieces parts? and has exactly the same results correct? Which part is 'immoral'

I've read some have concerns, i've never read that it was not allowed in writing anywhere. Must have missed that one.

I did read once though that forgiveness was big with the faithful. So was that whole love the sinner, hate the sin?

Catholics should treat women quite a bit better if they ever expect to be taken seriously.

http://frwest.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-in-vitro-fertilization-is-wrong_11.html

or if you would prefer it straight from the top dog

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=26682

"When human beings in the weakest and most defenceless stage of their existence are selected, abandoned, killed or used as pure 'biological matter', how can it be denied that they are no longer being treated as 'someone' but as 'something', thus placing the very concept of human dignity in doubt".

[Thiebear]

http://frwest.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-in-vitro-fertilization-is-wrong_11.html

or if you would prefer it straight from the top dog

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=26682

"When human beings in the weakest and most defenceless stage of their existence are selected, abandoned, killed or used as pure 'biological matter', how can it be denied that they are no longer being treated as 'someone' but as 'something', thus placing the very concept of human dignity in doubt".

But if she has a baby, thats called existence. Which part is immoral?

She was fired because of what really? What did SHE do that was so immoral she suddenly became unqualified?

She was fired because some doctors "may" do things the Church may not agree with?

Thats in writing somewhere when you become a teacher?

The Church found out she had killed babies in her womb? I never read that? Or were they 'assuming' she would?

The Pope was talking about "biological mass" she was talking about a child with her and her husband.. I believe there is quite a bit of difference.

I so want to bring up some things the POPE has done that is much worse and is still Pope but i'll leave that alone and focus.

Or is it only women can be fired?

[elkabong82]

twa is obligated to tow the Republican party's current line about complete religious freedom over individual freedom. if they were Muslims firing a Catholic worker based on religious moral objections, well then that's a different story where ideals and consistency clash

[twa]

You asked about the teachings

I'm not a part of the denomination and yet know it's doctrine....a teacher employed by them should not plead ignorance

[Thiebear]

TWA: could you point out in the links where she was wrong?

I'm only seeing hypothetical concerns over what doctors could do? I didn't read anything about a woman having a child with her husband?

Do we have to read between the lines and go with "what could have happened = fired".

[twa]

twa is obligated to tow the Republican party's current line about complete religious freedom over individual freedom. if they were Muslims firing a Catholic worker based on religious moral objections, well then that's a different story where ideals and consistency clash

Your individual freedom does not extend to a right to be employed by another

We have morality clauses for public schools as well,,your freedom does not entitle you to my support

Current line ...try reading Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Montesquieu, Burke, Smith and you might understand INDIVIDUAL freedom does not obligate another

[Thiebear]

But whatever way a child comes into the world, their lives must be respected and protected. Pope John Paul II asks in Evangelium Vitae "How can you have a human individual without having a human person."

It appears to me He was worried about test tube babies? - this doesn't seem to apply.

The other paragraph i read was about the act of sex? - Jesus didn't come into the world that way... Would the Pope fire Mary?

[twa]

Tbear...I'd suggest learning more about the in-vitro process and what is inherent in it

a process the Church has deemed a sin (as far as your last quote they do not discriminate against those born thru in-vitro)

fwiw they also deem MANY of my choices a sin....but I'm not employed by them(nor a part of),so they can kiss my ass

That is freedom

[elkabong82]

Your individual freedom does not extend to a right to be employed by another

We have morality clauses for public schools as well,,your freedom does not entitle you to my support

Current line ...try reading Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Montesquieu, Burke, Smith and you might understand INDIVIDUAL freedom does not obligate another

individual freedom does extend to reasonable cause for firing in just about every other profession

I am a teacher, I've read the people you list. Your post history suggests you're simply throwing out names and don't understand their concepts whatsoever.

A business has to have reasonable cause for a firing, except in the case of religious institutions, which is absurd because they are tax exempt and nothing actually guarantees their moral compass is better than any others. But you're always willing to sacrifice any kind of employee protection or freedom in favor of business owners and institutions because of your professional life. Maybe try reading Aristotle yourself, specifically the parts on logic and reason, and maybe then you'll understand that being in favor of something doesn't mean you have to go to the extreme of it in every single case like you do.

[twa]

TWA: could you point out in the links where she was wrong?

I'm only seeing hypothetical concerns over what doctors could do? I didn't read anything about a woman having a child with her husband?.

The primary reason the Catholic Church has opposed in-vitro fertilization from the beginning is that a child has a right to come into the world as a result of an act of love between his or her father and mother not as a result of a laboratory process.

the 1st link shows many reasons the oppose ,the one above being primary

---------- Post added April-28th-2012 at 06:43 PM ----------

individual freedom does extend to reasonable cause for firing in just about every other profession

I am a teacher, I've read the people you list. Your post history suggests you're simply throwing out names and don't understand their concepts whatsoever.

If you read them then you would understand the act of obligating yourself...which she did under the employment contract

Elka...extreme is not only flaunting your employee guidelines, but doing so openly as this woman did

When you make breaking the rules a public issue it becomes a more serious problem that must be addressed (they tolerate private sin more so than public ones)

[elkabong82]

If you read them then you would understand the act of obligating yourself...which she did under the employment contract

Elka...extreme is not only flaunting your employee guidelines, but doing so openly as this woman did

When you make breaking the rules a public issue it becomes a more serious problem that must be addressed (they tolerate private sin more so than public ones)

You're clearly not understanding my point, or not wanting to. I'm saying that these religious institutions should not be allowed to impose causes for firing that non-religious institutions cannot.

She did obligate herself to firings based on violation of their beliefs. I understand that, everyone commenting in this thread does. However, where exactly her specific procedure falls in line with a violation is what others have been debating. I, on the other hand, have simply argued what I listed above, that they shouldn't have such an ability to do so.

You seem to be stating that because she signed their employment contract, then they are free to interpret it however they want to create grounds for firing.

To the issue: She didn't make it "public" for all to know. She informed the principal since she was getting treatments (likely meaning she would need time off).

She is married, but underwent the treatments due to fertility issues.

The churches response: "the church promotes treatment of infertility through means that respect the right to life, the unity of marriage, and procreation brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act. There are other infertility treatments, such as in vitro fertilization, which are not morally licit according to Catholic teaching"

How exactly does in vitro fertlization violate that?

The Church should have logical rationale behind it's firings, this seems to be lacking. The woman had one of her own eggs fertilized with husband to bring life.

You stick with "she signed a contract, the Church can fire her" without ever considering whether or not the church's reasoning is rational. Yet you want to tell me about Aristotle? Here's a newsflash: if a company's rules are unlawful or irrational, then breaking of those rules isn't merited grounds for firing. The church should not be allowed to conduct itself that way in matters of employment, business, etc. The U.S. law is separate from religion, so it shouldn't be handing out exemptions. No other business or non-religious institution would be allowed to even have in it's contract that a woman can't undergo invitro fertilization. Of course, as I said earlier, if this were a Muslim institution I highly doubt you'd be defending them.

But again I don't even think it's about religion, it's you favoring business owners and leaders being allowed to do whatever they want without any real justification.

But please, tell me again how "going to the principal" and "openly flaunting" are one and the same, smh.

[twa]

Elka , rational is determined by that authority(the employer)initially , she has the right to fight it and win IF she has a case....I don't think she does (and the law says they can impose in ways the public sector cannot, a exemption exists whether you agree with it or not)

As to your inference on my motives.....I believe in freedom of association and religion,not freedom from the consequences of your choices.

I'm not a fan of Catholics or Muslims,I do support their right to be wrong within limits...hell I even support yours

Doesn't mean I agree

[elkabong82]

Rationality is laid out by the employer, but ultimately upheld or overruled by law. Except in the case of religious institutions, which I disagree with. I know the exemption exists, I disagree with it, I've said as much in here clearly, you reiterating that is unnecessary and pointless.

In normal circumstances, an employer would have to justify being against something such as invitro, and their justification would have to be rational. In the case of religion, that doesn't matter. They are free to interpret things the way they see fit and I disagree with any employer having that power, above the law. I am interpreting your responses of "employer has that right" instead of showing any kind of objection to their protected irrationality and being considered outside US law, as favoritism towards unfairly slanted powers to employers. I've seen you show those preferences before, and I think it's irresponsible and inconsiderate to support or not object to that kind of abuse and stripping of employee rights in favor excess powers for the employers, ones which in this case are above the law.

[twa]

It is only above the law when proven so

Why should I impose my rationalization(or embrace yours) over their own in this matter?

It is their church and school,not mine or yours

It is humorous to hear you preach irresponsible and inconsiderate:ols: in my not imposing my view on others

[Larry]

You're clearly not understanding my point, or not wanting to. I'm saying that these religious institutions should not be allowed to impose causes for firing that non-religious institutions cannot.

If I may, I think I see some "arguing past each other", here.

1) twa's position is that all employers can do anything they like, and employees just have to take it.

(He's very Republican, that way.)

2) Whereas you are arguing that a private employer couldn't do this (I'm not 100% certain that you're correct on that assumption. As far as I'm aware, employers are allowed to do whatever they want, unless there's a law that explicitly says that they can't.), and that, therefore, churches shouldn't be allowed to do it, either.

FWIW, I disagree with both of you.

I believe that your sex life is none of your employer's business, whether the employer wants to claim it is, or not. IMO, there are some things where "liberty of contract" are justifiably limited, and this is clearly one of them. (At least for most employers. No doubt there are legitimate exceptions, some places.)

But, also, that churches are justifiably exempt from a lot of limitations on other businesses.

IMO, a church has every right to forbid blacks from their church. As customers, employees, or as priests. If the Catholic Church wants to have a rule that only males can become priests. and only females can become nuns, then that's part of their religious freedom.

(I think that this "exemption from some laws" becomes more questionable, as the point of discussion moves from a church, to some actiuvity that's affiliated with a church, to something that's merely a for-profit business, owned by the church. I would say that, even though the Watergate may be owned by the catholic church, that equal opportunity housing and employment laws still apply there. But then, I would say that a Catholic school is more closely affiliated with a church than simply being a business.)

[twa]

Larry, I believe a employment contract is binding on both parties equally....I take my responsibilities seriously and expect my employees to do the same or suffer the consequences

It's a job,not a damn entitlement