O’Reilly covers pro-life t-shirt controversy
The good news is the controversy about the 7th grader suing her school to wear her pro-life t-shirt got 2-1/2 minutes of air time on The O’Reilly Factor last night.
The other good news is neither O’Reilly nor Megyn Kelly considered the photos of preborn babies to be “graphic,” as administrators at McSwain Elementary School in Merced, CA, asserted.
The bad news is both O’Reilly and Kelly still came down on the school’s side in this case. Both thought the shirt could be considered “disruptive,” particularly to younger children, since this is a K-8 school. Both thought it was the photos that did the shirt in. Not mentioned was similar if not identical photos are in same school’s textbooks.
I disagree it was the photos alone that were problematic. I expect the 7th grader could have worn a wordless shirt with the same photos and been just fine. No, it was the combination of the word “ABORTION” with photos of beautiful preborn children that became “disruptive.”
[HT: Judie Brown of American Life League, which designed the t-shirt]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I’m very troubled by how easily so many seem to disregard free speech rights of children in schools. “Potential disruption” is easy to claim, but should be established before rights are taken away.
I agree, Hal.
How refreshing!!
I agree, Hal. Kids have a right to free speech.
I imagine teachers were the “disrupted ones”, not students. This would have been a good teaching opportunity but the teachers wimped out. I also agree with Jill, it was the word “ABORTION” that scared the teachers, not the baby pictures.
I agree Janet, this could have been a very teachable moment, not just about abortion, but diversity of opinions, respect for different views, and Constitutional protections (speech and privacy, for example).
That’s what schools are supposed to be doing.
Speech than can never offend or disrupt doesn’t need first amendment protection
I have the perfect solution to conundrums like this.
Dis-establish and defund government schools and let the free market fill the need.
Or issue kids lap tops and provide them with internet service and they will never have to leave their home to receive an education.
No school buses running up and down the roads, emitting green house gases.
No monstrous buildings to construct, maintain, and heat/cool. No campus lawns to water and mow. No metal detectors and random locker searches.
You say, “Oh Ken, be realistic. This would never work.”
We have educated all five of our children with no assistance from the ‘government school system’ and four of them are now in college and I have never made more than 50K a year and my wife has not been gainfully employed outside the home.
If we can do it then so can other folk.
A mother may not have a husband or a father a wife, but they both have parents and brothers and sisters and aunts and uncles who could and should help them in their need.
yor bro ken
This isn’t rocket science. Prolife messages are banned, proabort and/or pro satanic worship and/or pro porn and violent messages are okay. It’s not rocket science.