Be sure to read all the way to the part in bold below. Read the whole article here.
A California mom says her public school administrators violated her daughter’s First Amendment rights when they ordered the seventh-grader to take off her pro-life T-shirt.
Anna Amador has gone to court on behalf of her daughter, who she says was ordered by her principal to change her shirt on “National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day.” The shirt the girl was wearing displays two graphic pictures of a fetus growing in the womb.
. . .
One of the girl’s lawyers, Mark A. Thiel, said that the images on her shirt of a fetus in the womb were the same as those in her science textbooks. He said no student had complained about the shirt, and he said the girl’s parents were not called when the incident took place.
The shirt is quite clever in taking pictures of growing human beings and pointing out how abortion makes them disappear.
The school thought the images were offensive (and they weren’t even images of abortion), but they don’t think abortion is offensive. That’s just more evidence that it is an upside down, Romans 1 world. Once again I thank God that Jesus came to turn it right-side up.
Hat tip: Tony
Filed under: Politics | Tagged: abortion, education, God, images, Politics, Pro-life, religion, science, textbook
Aw shucks! That would have been a great article for my “Sanity in an Upside Down World” blog. You beat me to it!
We are slowly but surely coming into an age where good is called evil and evil good. Troubling times indeed.
I hope they win the case, and more children start wearing the shirts. In fact, churches should start distributing the shirts to children, free of charge, in order to get the message out even more.
Blessings
Since when did pictures of babies, albeit not fully formed ones, became offensive? Like Mercedes says, troubling times indeed!
[...] artículo lo encontré por primera vez en el blog de 4simpsons, al cual visito regularmente, y en el website [...]
I have no idea what this site says but I think it is legitimate. Mi hija isn’t here to translate for me, so if any Spanish-speaking readers think it is bogus let me know.
Hello Neil, no is not a bogus site. I’m a regular reader of your blog and i’ve commented once or twice here. Excellent article. I totally agree with you.
The LORD Bless you.
Thanks, Pastor, and blessings to you and your ministry!+
I first heard about this T-shirt case on Fox News. Isn’t it truly ironic that the shirt shows photos that would be in any science textbook, however, when the reality of abortion is exposed through the message of a growing child in the womb as being “gone” the pro-aborts go crazy and violate a 7th grader’s right to free speech?
You’re right Neil – you just couldn’t “make this up.” What an absolutely sad state of affairs here in America. The message of the t-shirt makes them all squirm. Killing a fetus in the womb is child murder…and they know it.
It doesn’t surprise me (anyone notice how cynical I’ve been getting lately?) I’ve heard of several cases – locally and nationally – where students have been ordered to remove or turn their Christian T-shirts inside out.
Immodest shirts and those with explicit or sexually provocative rhetoric are tolerated, but bring Christianity to school and in some places you face discipline. I fully expect, by the time my kids are in high school, to have to deal with First Amendment rights violations.
Good thing I work in the courts system.
I’m surprised at you Neil. You think its appropriate for a child to wear an anti abortion t-shirt in an elementary school? Seventh grader at a junior high school is one thing, but a seventh grader in a K-8 school is an entirely different thing.
School has a responsibility to the younger students. This t-shirt causes enough attention to make children ask questions that require parental permission to answer. More than that its a distraction from learning.
Yes she has a right to wear it, but “Its not a vote its a life!” Would have been more appropriate in this particular instance.
Hi Mizclark,
I guess I don’t see the harm.
I know you aren’t in the following category, but I definitely don’t see how anyone advancing the homosexual agenda in public schools could complain. After all, they want to teach children as young as 4 how “natural” gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender behavior is and they want kids to go to lesbian weddings and gay pride parades, among other things.
They also want schools to be able to whisk kids away to have your grandchildren destroyed via abortion — without your knowledge, of course.
So of course they can’t pull up the drawbridge and claim “parental rights” over a t-shirt that just shows pictures that appear in their textbooks.
I have seen sixth grade history text books that show pictures of the holocaust.
Stacks of bodies, people down to skin and bones, etc.
As with all things leftist, it’s not about the image, it’s that the image doesn’t benefit the left. And that is why it’s a problem.
The images are used in 6th grade level science textbooks, as the article indicates. Surely the blue background is not the controversy. Ergo there can be no doubt, *it is the message itself that caused the problem.*
I think I understand your viewpoint mizclark; I do think a school has a right to regulate to some degree what children wear. But I don’t think this particular shirt is graphic, and I think, if a child really understands what the shirt is saying, they are old enough to see it. Younger kids who don’t understand won’t be offended..
I think there are good points here all around, but the images are not offensive in the least. I don’t think that the issue of abortion has a place on a child’s shirt, but I don’t have the right to dress other people’s children.
I don’t think any of you would be very happy if I dressed my son in a shirt that says “God is Pretend” and sent him to kindergarden.
How much interaction do children at a K-8 school have? Wouldn’t the seventh graders sort of be in their own world anyway? (The desks for them are bigger; they need bigger chairs in the lunch room, they might not get recess and certainly wouldn’t be playing Dodgeball with the first-graders, etc.)
Would the young kids even understand it? If they did, would they be traumatised because abortion is a horrible thing that we allow to happen 4,000 times a day, or upset because of something else?
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘not a follower’ but rest assured I am against all forms of government sanctioned murder…all murder! I was surprised because we just had a conversation about changing legislation in an effort to force ideals. As much as we hate it, Neil we are the minority in this arguement.
Its perfectly legal for a woman or doctor to murder an unborn child. Just like its perfectly illegal for homosexuals to marry.
I think Ryan understood my point the best. I don’t really have a problem with the t-shirt, it could have been much worse, but I was speaking from the perspective of the school.
theobromophile: I’m not sure about others’ schools but the way my kids’ school is built they aren’t in their own world. PreK and K are in a locked wing in the back of the school, and they have to pass through the wings of the older children to get to the gen-pop areas (cafeteria, library, pe etc).
And they have big brother/sister little brother/sister reading program where the older children get to leave their class and go to a younger class and read to them, among other things so the older kids mentor the younger ones. This is where problems arise.
I see nothing wrong with a child wearing a pro-life shirt in elementary school. -shrug-
Sorry I meant Chance
Some schools just freak. The left has gone so far overboard with their political correctness and hate speech and fear of offending that schools over-react in order to prevent legal action. At times, this brings it about in another way anyway.
Yet, considering how young the left wants to begin pro-homosex indoctrination, it’s likely they’d disapprove of a shirt that opposes another issue they support. Gotta get those kids to understand a woman’s right, ya know!
Some schools just freak. The left has gone so far overboard with their political correctness and hate speech and fear of offending that schools over-react in order to prevent legal action. At times, this brings it about in another way anyway.
Yet, considering how young the left wants to begin pro-homosex indoctrination, it’s likely they’d disapprove of a shirt that opposes another issue they support. Gotta get those kids to understand a woman’s right, ya know!
You’d think that liberals wanted anal sex lessons in kindergarden class by the way you people talk about it. The only “indoctrination” they wanted to do in schools was to teach young children that sometimes the family situations of certain kids may be different than their own.
Perhaps Mary only has a mom. Perhaps Johnny lives with his aunt and uncle. Perhaps Sam lives with his grandparents. Perhaps Jimmy lives in foster home run by two sisters. And yes – perhaps Natalie live with two dads – both raging homos.
The point is that children should not make fun of others, and should treat each other with respect, even if their parents don’t. I’ve seen the lesson plan, and the right wing is spinning this to their liking.
You are deceived and/or a deceiver.
Concerning sex and for Kindergarteners…
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/sex-ed-for-kind.html
Obama supports it.
*Sex ed.
To be clear, I’m quite sure Obama does not support “Sex and kindergarteners.” Whoops.
Sex ed huh? Did you read the whole article?
So your 5 year old asks where baby’s come from you want to tell them the stork? Age- appropriate sex education- there is a big difference. You don’t agree, don’t sign the permission slip.
The point was about sex end for kindergarteners, which Obama supports.
I provided clear evidence. Parsing it as “age appropriate” does not nullify the evidence.
Proof was given. Q.E.D.
Well they start asking in kindergarten so what’s your point?
Are you gonna lie until they’re old enough? Have you ever been in the classroom? Do you know what teachers are up against everyday? While you may be a parent that does their job, there are those that don’t. There are parents that allow their children to see and be around inappropriate things.
Believe it or not they go to school and ask, and most often by raising their hand while everyone is ‘listening’. I’ve taught kindergarten, and when one has the courage to ask then they all begin asking. Its a round of inappropriate questions for 10 minutes. Questions they can’t answer and they are losing valuable class time. These teachers need to be able to answer quickly and move on. PERIOD.
You’re making it sound like its gonna be language arts or something and they get a grade on their report card.
Speaking of sex ed, I think this is the series we used when the girls were younger — http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Big-Deal-Cares-Design/dp/1600060161/ref=sr_1_1?i e=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247187217&sr=8-1 I recommend it.
My point is that Obama supports sex ed for kindergarteners, which someone else implied he did not. Was simply disputing that matter of fact.
The content of that is obviously a matter for discussion, and I’d be glad to have that discussion if you’re interested.
Kindergarden kids NEED to know the difference between appropriate touching and inappropriate touching. If you consider that “sex ed” then yes, they need sex-ed.
Neil, I posted on this at my place. My final point was this:
Funny how the Libs respect the first amendment right to free speech except when they disagree with the message.