Principal, staffer suspended for distribution of "shocking... repelling... squishy, fleshlike... fetus dolls"

I posted this story as the Quote of the Day Saturday, but it is so ridiculous and beyond the pale I wanted to make sure everyone saw it.

fetus doll 1.jpgFrom the Virginian-Pilot, May 21:

Plastic human fetus dolls - soft, in pink and brown, and about 4" long - have been handed out at Oakwood Elementary School [Norfolk, VA] by an employee who was put on administrative leave Thursday over the situation....

The dolls, which were distributed over weeks or months, are not authorized by the division as instructional materials, spokeswoman Elizabeth Thiel Mather said Thursday. Mather said the employee will remain on leave until school officials investigate the reports....

Principal Sheila Tillett Holas was put on leave today.... The division began its investigation after The Pilot asked school leaders this week about the fetus dolls.

The distribution of the life-like forms among grade school children shocked and repelled some parents and teachers and School Board members who discussed them in a closed meeting this week.

First, this is the sort of "investigative journalism" we get from MSM these days? 2nd, what in the h-e-double bamboo shoots is the problem with giving 3rd-5th grade children baby dolls? What's the difference between this doll and any other baby doll? Yet here are incredibly obtuse quotes from school board members, from the Virginian-Pilot:

fetus doll 2.jpg

  • "It is hard to imagine that we would have an employee who believes it would be appropriate to share plastic fetus dolls with students in one of our schools." ~ School Board Chairman Stephen Tonelson
  • "Very life like, and it's a pro-life tool. To be quite honest, that is so incredible to me, that a staff member would do something so... entirely inappropriate and unacceptable. [Board members] were all pretty dumbfounded." ~ Board member Kirk Houston Sr.
  • "The administration has to look at that. That's obviously inappropriate." ~ Board member Billy Cook
  • WAVY-TV did a hit job against rationality in its May 21 news story, reporting there was "a lot of upset, a lot of outrage" that these "fetus figures," also described as "squishy, fleshlike figures," were distributed to children with a "clear anti-abortion message attached."

    What was that message? According to the WAVY report (which CNN also ran), the attached card read, "'Some people think that my life began at birth; but my life's journey began long before I was born,' [and] on the back of the card a description of the development of a fetus's 1st 12 weeks of life."

    Shock! Horror! Since when did human biology become a "clear anti-abortion message"? Also note WAVY spotlighted 3 pro-abort readers' comments and only 1 semi-pro-life comment ("So sex ed is ok but not a fetus doll? It's not THAT bad.")

    Something interesting I realized when reading up on this, which makes total sense given the ideology at work. "Comprehensive sex ed" focuses only on the developing bodies and body parts of born people, not preborn people. Here are "guidelines" from the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States for Level 1 sex ed for ages 5-8 (8yo = 3rd grade), quoting:

    • Each body part has a correct name and a specific function.

    • A person's genitals, reproductive organs, and genes determine whether the person is male or female.

    • A boy/man has nipples, a penis, a scrotum, and testicles.

    • A girl/woman has breasts, nipples, a vulva, a clitoris, a vagina, a uterus, and ovaries.

    • Some sexual or reproductive organs, such as penises and vulvas, are external or on the outside of the body while others, such as ovaries and testicles, are internal or inside the body.

    guidelines sex ed SIECUS.png• Both boys and girls have body parts that feel good when touched....

    • Men and women have reproductive organs that enable them to have a child.

    • Men and women have specific cells in their bodies (sperm cells and egg cells) that enable them to reproduce.

    • Reproduction requires that a sperm and egg join.

    • Vaginal intercourse - when a penis is placed inside a vagina - is the most common way for a sperm and egg to join.

    • When a woman is pregnant, the fetus grows inside her body in her uterus.

    • A woman can be pregnant with more than one fetus at a time.

    • Babies usually come out of a woman's body through an opening called a vagina.

    The Norfolk Public School System apparently doesn't begin sex ed until 6th grade, but I am curious to know what 3rd-5th graders are taught about human biology.


    Comments:

    I can't believe that someone could actually be "shocked and repelled" by the site of a fetal model.

    Are you kidding me? I said this in the other post, but I think it bears repeating. I used a very similar model to show my kids what their baby brother looked like when I told them I was pregnant at about 12ish weeks.

    They just said "Hey, it's a baby" and went about their merry way. Both my 5 year old and my nearly 2 year old understand that mommy has a baby in her belly. Surely by 3rd grade students can understand this basic bit of biology.

    The message wasn't even explicitly pro-life. I'm honestly flabergasted that the school board would have such a disporportionate reaction.

    The only thing I can possibly see making an issue over is if they were distributed outside of a science class type setting. They're great for a science lesson, but perhaps a bit random to give kids out of the blue.

    Still no reason to suspend anyone. Geesh.

    Posted by: Lauren at May 24, 2010 11:41 AM


    The word that jumps out at me regarding this story: "Inappropriate"

    I belive the definition of the term is now dependent on the politicial/ moral view of the person...

    What hypocrites these people are.

    Posted by: RSD at May 24, 2010 11:54 AM


    It is sad that this little doll is considered "repelling". :( This is something that should be covered in biology classes because it happens to everyone! It's not repelling!

    Posted by: Becky at May 24, 2010 11:55 AM


    You can teach the theoretical evolution of man, but you cannot teach the biological evolution of one man.

    These pro-aborts REALLY love abortion.

    Posted by: Cranky Catholic at May 24, 2010 11:56 AM


    So,what I gather from this story is: basic biology has a clear pro-life message. It's about time the pro-aborts admitted that.

    Posted by: Maggie at May 24, 2010 11:57 AM


    Of course human biology, especially fetal development, is pro-life. The jump they make is to assume that it is thus inappropriate. The reasoning is that any facts that contradict their agenda aren't appropriate. No, I'm not shocked at all.

    Posted by: ycw at May 24, 2010 11:59 AM


    Anyone have contact info?

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 24, 2010 12:20 PM


    I have very little patience with anyone who thinks that there's anything "shocking" or "inappropriate" about telling children the truth about basic scientific facts that are within their understanding. There is nothing controversial about how babies grow in the womb. Understanding that life begins at conception is a scientific fact no more difficult to comprehend than the fact that the heart pumps blood, or the fact that people breathe air into their lungs.

    Posted by: Marauder at May 24, 2010 12:27 PM


    The root of the horror is that the pro-aborts may lose control over the dissemination of information.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at May 24, 2010 12:35 PM



    You can teach the theoretical evolution of man, but you cannot teach the biological evolution of one man.

    These pro-aborts REALLY love abortion.

    Posted by: Cranky Catholic at May 24, 2010 11:56 AM


    Pro aborts don't like evolution because whoever has the most offspring wins. duh. The only thing they like about evolution is using it to bash the religiously conservative, who ironically are the most reproductively successful. Consider the local Christian homeschool group in my area who have on average 3 kids per family which is roughly twice the number of kids of that the non religious have. Also the folks in that group score very high on standardized test and are generally not fans of evolutionary theory. So while pro aborts love birth control and abortion, the existence of which virtually guarantee a more religious populace in the future as the non religious commit collective suicide. Religion is probably the single most successful group evolutionary strategy even ahead of xenophobia.

    Posted by: hippie at May 24, 2010 12:36 PM


    Pro-aborts: "THE TRUTH! IT BURNS! IT BUUURNS!"

    Posted by: MaryLee at May 24, 2010 12:36 PM


    Wow. People describing a developing child as 'repelling...' It's ok to give children condoms but not ok to show them how they themselves developed before their birthdays? The hypocrisy going on in our schools is so large, huge, galling... does English even have a vocabulary word for this degree of hypocrisy??

    Posted by: ninek at May 24, 2010 12:37 PM


    It's unbelievable, at a time when our public schools are struggling to teach reading, writing and arithmetic, that administrators are wasting their time debating this. These babies aren't BAD.... they are future TAX-PAYERS, for goodness sake.

    Posted by: Janet at May 24, 2010 1:02 PM


    I am appalled at WAVY-TV's lack of judgement! Shocking, repelling, wrinkly, fleshy adult images broadcast to the public, where even children might see them! Thank God that pre-born children are spared this cruel and unusual punishment.

    I especially detest the picture of Mike Spencer: where is his burkha?

    Posted by: Jon at May 24, 2010 1:18 PM


    Seriously? I still haven't read where anyone has said that this model and the accompanying card with biological information was INCORRECT. It apparently wasn't. I think Gerard Nadal said it best when he said in a comment above, the worst part is that the pro-aborts are feeling the sting of having this true, factual, important information come out without the "blob-of-tissue" spin they would have put on it. They aren't in the driver seat now, horror of horrors.

    I mean, for Pete's sake, what would happen if people actually found out the truth? They'd be...LESS inclined to have an abortion or be in favor of abortion if they knew about the growth and development of this tiny new person! Jinkies!

    I'm ready to throw the water on all this and hear, "I'm melting! Melting! What a world, what a world!" The jig is up folks. The truth DOES burn if you've been living a lie.

    Posted by: Elizabeth Shearer at May 24, 2010 1:22 PM


    Elizabeth Shearer,
    Love it! :)

    Posted by: Janet at May 24, 2010 1:24 PM


    Sex ed needs to begin with prenatal child development and continue with a discussion of parenting and marriage. Basically 90% of it should be focused on responsibility and duty to family and family loyalty. The nuts and bolts of tab A in slot B only takes five minutes and is obvious anyway.

    I think kids should be encouraged to bring in the little grainy ultrasound images of themselves for a show and tell about what their mothers said about them when they were gestating. Kids love to talk about themselves and about how excited mommy and daddy were that they were coming. It would be a great self esteem builder as well as a way for them to focus on the fact that they were alive and kicking precious and special individuals long before the cord was cut.

    Posted by: hippie at May 24, 2010 1:28 PM


    I'm glad my kids are grown. But if I ever have any grandkids, I will gladly work three jobs to send them to a nonpublic school!

    Posted by: phillymiss at May 24, 2010 1:29 PM


    "So,what I gather from this story is: basic biology has a clear pro-life message. "
    Love it! Couldn't have been said better by Janet Smith! Babies happen when something goes Right. =)

    Posted by: Victoria Falls at May 24, 2010 1:32 PM


    No, this is extremely inappropriate. He wasn't using the models to teach biology; it says they were not part of "class instruction." He was pushing his political views on small children who aren't even old enough to comprehend the issue.

    I'd be furious if my kid came home from school with literature/signs/whatever promoting some other adult's beliefs. If you think this is okay, how would you feel about liberal propaganda being forced on your 9-year-old? Why is it not okay for schools to host "Day of Silence" events to support gay rights? How about if your kid came home with a postcard explaining why Bush is Hitler and how the Iraq War is war of imperial aggression? (Yeah, I know liberal views are forced on schoolkids all the time, but that doesn't make it right.)

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 24, 2010 2:07 PM


    When trying to get someone to admit they have done something wrong, police officers for years have used the "good cop, bad cop" routine. Likewise, in parenting, many times one parent plays the role of "the heavy" while the other brings a softer approach with counseling and instruction to explain their spouses position.

    It's all done in love of course for the benefit of the child. If you don't incorporate some tough love (and some kids need it more than others) you will not be preparing them for the real world.

    So too, those of us in the Pro-life movement must publicly make a bold, clear stand for the truth.

    You don't mince words when the subject is the ongoing execution of violent genocide in our own neighborhoods.

    That said, we must be prepared and careful to show the utmost compassion and love to those advocating abortion rights when dealing with them on a personal level (like Abby Johnson). We don't know what led each pro-abort to arrive at their present convictions regarding Life.

    Were they raped? Were they physically abused? Did they witness their mother being battered by a stepfather? Are they fearful and distrusting of men? The world can be an intimidating and scary place for women. Did you see today's Quote of the Day? Men, who should be providing for and protecting their girlfriends, wives, daughters and mothers are sometimes so evil that they exploit and inflict great harm on the women in their lives.

    It's tragic.

    And we wonder why feminists have a chip on their shoulder?

    So when I comment about abortion publicly, I'm bold. I'm speaking from that part of my masculine nature that wants to protect unborn children as if they were my own.

    Like this: Let's be perfectly clear. The only reason these morally bankrupt, spineless academics have an issue with someone exposing to the light of day the beauty and miracle of human life in its early stages of development is that they want to reserve the right to dismember and kill these little children if they want to.

    To those of us that love Life and love children, these dolls are precious and awe-inspiring.

    To the pro-death mob, they are "inappropriate...unacceptable...disturbing" because they have already decided in their evil hearts that they want to be able to kill their children if they "choose" to and don't want to be confronted with the truth of the beauty of preborn human life or the wickedness of their own hearts.

    "And the judgment is based on this fact: God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil. All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed. But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants.” Jn 3:19–21 NLT

    On a personal level however, my heart breaks for women who have been abused, victimized by the men in their lives who should love them.

    Like the poor girl whose husband talked her into an abortion, how afterwards she was inconsolable, screaming with regret and remorse, and he didn't have a clue how to help her.

    So publicly, let us proclaim the truth about abortion boldly. But in dialogue with those advocating abortion rights on a personal level, as James exhorts us, "So then, my beloved brethren, let every man (and woman) be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God." Jas 1:19–20 NKJV

    God teach us your compassion, help us all to love others like You loved us.

    Posted by: Ed at May 24, 2010 2:09 PM


    Posted by: hippie at May 24, 2010 12:36 PM

    Sounds like you should be thrilled about the legality and availability of abortion. If the, as you say "pro-aborts," keep on aborting, the only folks left will be religious, pro-lifers. Your utopia. Darwinism working to your advantage. You are aware that not all kids, raised in large, religious households, grow up to have lots of kids. Not all of these people stay true to the old time religion. I grew up in a strict Irish Catholic area where there were large families. My generation are now adults and many are unmarried, some are openly gay, many are no longer Catholic, and those who have kids have small families. There is a large co-hort of young ex Mormons. Recent religious surveys show that the younger generation is much more secular than the previous generations. Life beyond the home school group might just be a little different.

    Posted by: Maevis at May 24, 2010 2:10 PM


    So it's not like he passed out the fetus models to go with a lesson about fetal development. This is pushing political views on someone else's kids during school time.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 24, 2010 2:12 PM


    I live in one of the top school districts in the country, and people are amazed that we spend the money to send our children to a Catholic school...well, this is exactly why. And, yes, our children have been given these preborn baby models. And they attend the Silver Ring Thing and they go to the March for Life. They have the freedom to talk about more issues in their Catholic school than do their public school friends. And their standardized test scores consistently rank with the top ranked school district in which we reside. Worth every penny!!!!

    Posted by: Robin at May 24, 2010 2:13 PM


    Ashley: What did he say that's solely political, as opposed to a biological fact?

    Posted by: Marauder at May 24, 2010 2:26 PM


    Ashley wrote, "This is pushing political views on someone else's kids during school time."

    If I've understood American education correctly, then the whole public system is pretty much a propaganda machine for the Democrats. Thank God for some recent Texan influence! (I'm not referring to former president George Bush but to a textbook controversy.)

    But Maggie and Marauder have made the more essential point. Basic biology has a clear pro-life message! Pro-choicers, beware!

    Posted by: Jon at May 24, 2010 2:37 PM


    Saying "some people believe my life began at birth" is clearly trying to rope kids into the abortion issue. Don't play dumb. How about passing out cards that say "Some people believe being gay is a choice, but I've liked boys since as long as I can remember!" Would that be okay? Sure, you can play dumb and say it's just a statement of fact, but the intent is for an authority figure to force specific views on captive children.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 24, 2010 2:42 PM


    Ok Biology teachers across the land, time to get out those fetal models and set them up for display!!

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 24, 2010 3:07 PM


    I really don't think the message is at all political or would lead a child to thinking anything at all about abortion.

    The "some people believe my life begins at birth" could just as easily be describing the belief of uniformed children who don't understand that we are alive before we are actually born.

    It's not stating any opinion one way or another at all, or pushing any particular agenda.

    It would be one thing if the cards handed out said "and people want to kill me via abortion. Abortion is wrong." Or something like that. The wording itself of the card could be in any late elementary level biology book, as could the model.

    Posted by: Lauren at May 24, 2010 3:08 PM


    I remember my school had a little flesh-like gel thing that had a stone or something inside that was supposed to teach you what a tumor felt like if you were doing a self-exam.

    Somehow it ended up in my mom's (the counselor at a really small county school) office. She had it sitting in her office and people would often grab it and ask what it was. Even though it wasn't anywhere in her official job discription to tell them about breast cancer prevention, she would explain what it was and remind the young women to remember to do self exams and see their doctor if they felt anything that felt like the model.

    Now, it might have been different if she was actively going and handing this out to students rather than passively having it in her office, but I don't think that it could be described as outrages by anyone.

    What's the difference between having a model of a tumor or a model of a human at 11 wks development?

    Posted by: Lauren at May 24, 2010 3:16 PM


    I actually don't find this that outrageous. Considering all the other nonsense that goes on in schools--usually involving teachers shoving liberalism down students' throats--this seems like nothing. Tell the guy to stop and drop it.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 24, 2010 3:22 PM


    Ashley,
    Are you contradicting yourself or just changing your mind?

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 24, 2010 3:30 PM


    "I think kids should be encouraged to bring in the little grainy ultrasound images of themselves for a show and tell about what their mothers said about them when they were gestating. Kids love to talk about themselves and about how excited mommy and daddy were that they were coming. It would be a great self esteem builder as well as a way for them to focus on the fact that they were alive and kicking precious and special individuals long before the cord was cut."

    Posted by: hippie at May 24, 2010 1:28 PM

    I hope the teachers at the Oakwood Elementary School read your post. Excellent idea.

    Maybe the rabid pro-abort's kids could bring the ultrasounds of their aborted siblings into school (just to be fair to present both sides of the story*sarcasm alert*).

    Posted by: Janet at May 24, 2010 3:33 PM


    I think it's inappropriate, but the school is overreacting. Come on, they must have bigger fish to fry.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 24, 2010 3:37 PM


    Principal Holas needs our support!!

    57% say she should be fired. We need to turn up
    the volume about how this shows the infinite value
    of prenatal life and is far more effective than any poison
    PP brings to their district in the form of Comprehensive Sex Ed.


    Oakwood Elementary School
    900 Asbury Avenue
    Norfolk, VA 23513-2899
    (757) 852-4570

    Superintendant Jones - 757-628-3830
    Chief of Operations - Michael Spencer - 757-628-3930
    Chairman of the School Board Stephen Tonelson -
    757-423-7176

    Posted by: Leslie Hanks at May 24, 2010 3:37 PM


    "Some people believe being homosexual is a choice, but I've liked boys for as long as I can remember!"

    This may be a statement of fact for most girls and some boys, Ashley, but it's not a universal undeniable truth like that of the life of the pre-born baby. Schools do exist to teach basic truths, don't they? (There's also a proper time and place for everything, but how is the gentle message of the doll in any way harmful to a child's development?)

    And if some basic truths or biological or religious, I don't care whether they are also political. They still should be taught. Of course, if we cannot even agree on basic scientific truths, especially those concerning what we see (and science is an empirical activity), then how are we ever going to agree on basic religious truths? They are spiritual.

    If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. (1 John 4:20)

    Many of the same people who refuse to believe in the existence of pre-born people also question God's existence.

    The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Proverbs 1:7)

    Posted by: Jon at May 24, 2010 3:41 PM


    ...But I think anyone who defends passing out fetus dolls and talking to kids about abortion loses their right to bitch about gay propaganda in schools. If you think it's wrong to talk to kids about how being gay is okay, then abortion politics have no place in grade school, either.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 24, 2010 3:45 PM


    This is exactly how I feel about it:

    http://hamptonroads.com/2010/05/fetus-doll-has-no-place-school?cid=omc

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 24, 2010 3:48 PM


    "and talking to kids about abortion loses their right to bitch about gay propaganda in schools."

    But there wasn't talk about abortion. Just fetal development. The card doesn't say a thing about abortion, and I doubt many of those kids even know that abortion exists. It's a totally different situation.

    Posted by: Lauren at May 24, 2010 3:48 PM


    I think you are failing to note a distinction in the two statements, Ashley (at 3:45 p.m.). Aside from that distinction, children must also learn the proper time and place for both killing (eating an animal or fighting for your country) and sex (in marriage, obviously with a person of the opposite sex). Abortion and homosexuality are immoral, and they have to do with the fourth R: religion. Practically, since you and I do not agree, I would probably argue for greater parental (local) control of schools.

    Posted by: Jon at May 24, 2010 4:03 PM


    Lauren,
    If the teacher was passing out these dolls without the intent to make a statement about abortion, like you say, then what was their purpose? This teacher was not teaching a biology lesson and s/he was not a medical professional. What was their reason for handing out the dolls? The teacher must have had some motive, since s/he spent time and money on the cards and dolls. What do you HONESTLY think it was, Lauren? What is your opinion?

    Posted by: Sarajane at May 24, 2010 4:31 PM



    Click on the last link in Jill's story ("doesn't begin sex ed until 6th grade") for more information on the sex ed program in Norfolk public schools - known as Family Life Education, FLE for short.

    There's a photo of an "Egg baby" that the Eighth graders create, name and care for. Now that's realistic (???)

    I guess the pro-aborts in VA don't want to risk showing their children fetal babies in the womb. Children might grow up and become adults with emotional ties to a real baby in the womb. *GASP*.

    Posted by: Janet at May 24, 2010 4:42 PM


    Honestly, sarajane,I think the person who handed out the dolls(they didn;t say if it was a teacher or a staff member) was trying to get the point across that life begins before birth.

    There's no reason to think that the person was making an explicitly anti-abortion statement.

    Had the person been wishing to make a statement against abortion, he or she could have made a much bolder statement than simply "life begins before birth."

    Posted by: Lauren at May 24, 2010 4:52 PM


    Janet,

    the 'egg baby' project has been assigned in schools across the country forever. I'm surprised that you seem not to have heard of it. I've even seen it portrayed on sitcoms way back in the 80s.

    The eggs don't represent fetuses but actual babies that the students are supposed to care for and protect in order to get a feel for the responsibility of parenting. Personally, I think it is a stupid assignment that no student takes much away from but I sincerely doubt it's an effort by pro choicers to shield students from finding out what babies look like. I'm pretty sure most kids know that infants do not resemble chicken eggs.

    Posted by: Sarajane at May 24, 2010 4:54 PM


    "The "some people believe my life begins at birth" could just as easily be describing the belief of uniformed children who don't understand that we are alive before we are actually born.

    It's not stating any opinion one way or another at all, or pushing any particular agenda.

    It would be one thing if the cards handed out said "and people want to kill me via abortion. Abortion is wrong." Or something like that. The wording itself of the card could be in any late elementary level biology book, as could the model."

    I agree with this.

    Was the information the teacher handed out indisputably correct? Yes. Was it something children of that age could understand? Yes. Was it something relevent to children of that age? Yes, all of them were unborn babies at one time. Were the fetus dolls taking away time from something else that the teacher was required to teach? No one's argued that or raised any evidence that they were. If a kid came home and said, "Mom, I heard in school today that babies are alive before they're born," could his or her mother present legitimate scientific evidence to refute that fact? No.

    Nobody knows for an absolute, provable fact why anyone is gay. (I think people are born gay, but can I prove it? No, and I acknowledge that.) We do know for an absolute, provable fact that unborn babies are alive. Unlike, say, cell structure, it's something basic that kids can easily understand. As long as it's a true fact that no one can dispute, something kids can understand, and something that's a basic, basic truth about human beings, I really don't care why this guy gave the dolls to his class. Merely stating that unborn babies are alive is not incorrect, frightening, debatable, or controversial.

    Posted by: Marauder at May 24, 2010 5:00 PM


    But WHY, Lauren, would this teacher feel the need to give students a biology lesson when that was not their job?

    I believe that life begins at conception but I don't feel the need to inform people of that without provocation or an agenda. Just like I don't feel the need to randomly inform people that frogs are amphibians or Serius is also called the dogstar out of any sort of context.

    Why do you think this teacher felt the need to give a science lesson she wasn't hired to give, Lauren?

    Posted by: Sarajane at May 24, 2010 5:04 PM


    I suppose next we'll be banning the lessons on sexual reproduction so students don't find out that they all started as a single cell.

    Posted by: Nulono at May 24, 2010 5:12 PM


    Wait, why is the fetus referring to birth in the past sense? :/

    Posted by: Nulono at May 24, 2010 5:19 PM


    Who knows, Sarajane. Maybe the person just happened to have them left over from some function and thought "hey, the kids might like these."

    If it wasn't a teacher, they probably shouldn't have done it outside of biology class, but the most that deserves is someone saying "Hey Bill, I know you didn't mean anything by it, but don't hand stuff out to the kids at lunch anymore."

    Posted by: Lauren at May 24, 2010 5:27 PM


    Posted by: Sarajane at May 24, 2010 4:54 PM


    "Janet,"

    "the 'egg baby' project has been assigned in schools across the country forever. I'm surprised that you seem not to have heard of it. I've even seen it portrayed on sitcoms way back in the 80s."

    Didn't know that. I was probably too busy to notice. :)

    "The eggs don't represent fetuses but actual babies that the students are supposed to care for and protect in order to get a feel for the responsibility of parenting. Personally, I think it is a stupid assignment that no student takes much away from but I sincerely doubt it's an effort by pro choicers to shield students from finding out what babies look like. I'm pretty sure most kids know that infants do not resemble chicken eggs."

    One would hope, but what about when the baby is still in the womb? I wouldn't bet the farm on a correct answer from every one of these kids.

    Posted by: Janet at May 24, 2010 5:29 PM


    "But WHY, Lauren, would this teacher feel the need to give students a biology lesson when that was not their job?"

    Do we know exactly what his/her job was? I keep seeing "an employee."

    "Just like I don't feel the need to randomly inform people that frogs are amphibians or Serius is also called the dogstar out of any sort of context."

    But if you did, would you be teaching an agenda? No, because no matter what you or anyone else thought about those facts, they would still be true.

    (I feel compelled by my correct-spelling and Harry-Potter-fan agendas to mention that it's S-I-R-I-U-S.)

    Posted by: Marauder at May 24, 2010 5:31 PM


    All my nieces and nephews lives began BEFORE BIRTH. I felt my oldest niece HICCUPING before birth! Tissue doesn't hiccup.

    Why do people hate these fetal models? Because they prove the HUMANITY OF THE UNBORN CHILD.


    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 24, 2010 5:43 PM


    Now see, Marauder, you have a perfectly good reason to inform me of the correct spelling of Sirius. If you were walking up to strangers or even your co-workers or acquaintences and proclaiming "Sirius is spelled S I R I U S!" people would probably think you were nuts.

    I think we as pro lifers need to be careful to not do things that make us appear sneaky or deceitful. I truly think that anyone who honestly believes this employee had absolutely no pro life motive behind these dolls is deceiving themselves and, like this staff member, painting a picture of pro lifers as being sneaky about promoting the pro life issue.

    Posted by: Sarajane at May 24, 2010 5:58 PM


    If he had a pro-life intention, he could've gone about it better.

    Posted by: Nulono at May 24, 2010 6:17 PM


    I can't believe the NERVE of some schools trying to push their political agenda! I mean, HOW DARE we teach kids that 2 + 2 = 4? Don't you know that is POLITICAL? If you teach kids basic addition they can never grow up to be Democrats or work in the Congressional Budget Office. Politics have no place at school.

    Don't teach kids mathematical truth, or biological truth, or historical truth...its all too...too...too political!

    Posted by: Sydney M. at May 24, 2010 7:08 PM


    What constitutes a pro-life intention? I'd assume the intention is to educate about fetal development. It's not like fifth graders are likely to be getting abortions. It's not like the facts are incorrect--the doll is an accurate representation of a 12-week fetus, everyone seems to agree, and a fetus of any age that has not died is provably, indisputably alive. So it seems that the pro-dismemberment-of-12-week-old-human-fetuses group simply thinks that learning these facts will... what? Make them not want abortions when they are older? Make them think killing 12-week-old fetuses is not okay? If an accurate visual and one fact can do that, is it really the doll that's the problem? If the only way to make sure children don't end up pro-life is to present no facts or worse yet, lies, is it the place of schools to make sure these children get such an "education"?

    I also don't think we know enough to judge intention; we don't know if the distribution was random or what triggered it. Maybe some of the students had asked questions and/or were expecting a sibling.

    Ashley, by the way, I appreciate how reasonable you are being and that you acknowledge that proponents of many political viewpoints may try to influence the views of children in general. Thank you.

    Posted by: ycw at May 24, 2010 7:08 PM


    Herzog, if one can't show a fetus unless one is teaching a specifically appropriate biology class...and my former friend who passes out condoms to her 12 year olds is teaching English not health nor biology: Are you going to agree on the inappropriateness of that or will hypocrisy prevail???

    Posted by: ninek at May 24, 2010 7:15 PM


    Where are these available from?

    I remember receiving a model entitled "The Visible Woman" from my grandparents when I was in the 4th grade, This plastic put-together and paint it model included pieces that showed a non-pregnant abdomen, one at 4 months, 6 months and at 8 months, complete with THE BABY!

    Would such an item be forbidden today too? There was also at the local health museum a display of "human development" from conception to birth entitled "Life." That was dismantled in the 1980s, it was deemed "too polarizing."

    Posted by: Sandra at May 24, 2010 9:40 PM



    Children shouldn't know about prenatal development but should know about the graphic details of sex? That's crazy! This entire thing is insane.

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 24, 2010 9:46 PM


    I swear I commented this earlier, but I'm not seeing it...


    I am curious to know how the antichoice crowd feels about ignoring the "parental rights" of a parent to teach their own child sexual/reproductive health information. I know many antis often speak about how sex ed/reproductive health should not be taught in schools for this reason?

    One parent is quoted as saying:
    ""As a parent, I choose to teach my children about those things later in life," she added. "I did not sign a waiver for my daughter to be given a fetus.""

    http://hamptonroads.com/node/554267?cid=mc

    Posted by: KushielsMoon at May 24, 2010 9:53 PM


    I have those same fetal models with the same literature and I can't imagine anyone except someone post abortive seeing them as anything but sweet.
    When I was pregnant with my last baby, at about 12 weeks I gave it to my daughter (thats the age of the fetal model), and told her about how her brother was developing and how that was about the same size and shape that he was at the time. What a great educational tool it is.

    I have had many pregnant women come to the Pregnancy center pregnant and when they see the model, the first thing out of their mouth is "awww!!" or "wow, that's what my baby looks like?"

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 24, 2010 9:55 PM


    KushielsMoon, the idea that children grow in their mother's womb is one that can be introduced long before a child has the understanding to question how it got there in the first place.

    My kids accept that I'm pregnant without asking how I got that way. I'm sure in a few years those questions will come, but I don't think it's inappropriate to introduce them to what children look like before birth at ages 8-11

    Posted by: Lauren at May 24, 2010 10:03 PM


    Why is it any more inappropriate to show a child a fetal model than to show them a baby doll? What exactly is the difference?

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 24, 2010 10:05 PM


    Sandra, you can order them at heritage house...
    http://www.heritagehouse76.com/pro_life_products.asp?group_id=64

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 24, 2010 10:09 PM


    Sandra, sorry...I posted the wrong link!

    http://www.heritagehouse76.com/pro_life_products.asp?group_id=66

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 24, 2010 10:12 PM


    I wonder if the teacher had given the students monarch caterpillars so that they could watch them grow and learn about the development of butterflies, if people would have written in angrily saying, "I didn't sign a waiver so that my child could be given a caterpillar!" or "How inappropriate, how squishy, repelling, disgusting!"

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 24, 2010 10:24 PM


    YCW, great questions at 7:08!

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 24, 2010 10:33 PM


    The posts after the articles about this (one was a poll) are very telling. Please read them. I live in Va. Beach & it just breaks my heart to see such denial of life by so many in this area. I have posted on this issue with the Virginian-Pilot often & frequently get the thumbs down for my views on life. It is so discouraging.

    Posted by: Rebecca M. Brooks at May 24, 2010 10:34 PM


    I don't have any issue with schools teaching kids basic biological facts about human reproduction. That's just basic science. I don't have any issue with schools teaching anatomy, either - in fact, I wish they'd spend a little more time on it, because it drives me crazy when people refer to everything between a woman's legs as a vagina.

    What I don't like about sex ed in schools is that most of the time, it's not just about puberty and sperm and eggs and the scientific aspect - it's either directly teaching or implying sexual values, and I think that's for parents to do. I don't even think schools should teach kids to accept gay relationships, and I'm bisexual. Should they be taught that it's wrong to be mean to gay people, or insult them, or ostracize them? Of course they should. My own (future) kids are going to be raised in a very gay-accepting household. But some people believe homosexuality is a sin, and as long as they don't use that belief to advocate violence or deny someone's basic civil rights, they have the right to think that.

    I don't want my kids to have sex until they've made a lifelong commitment to someone who's made a lifelong commitment to them. I don't want them to be taught, as some kids have been, that any consensual sexual behavior is okay or that they are the only ones who can decide when they'll have sex - as long as they're minors and live under my roof, I have a right as a parent to tell my children that no, they're not going to have sex, because they're too young to comprehend the enormity of the psychological rammifications.

    Fetal development, human reproduction, sexual anatomy, and how the sexual parts of the body function fall under science. Telling kids that it's okay to have sex as long as "it feels right" does not.

    Posted by: Marauder at May 24, 2010 10:43 PM


    From my understanding, the fetus-dolls given out were not part of a curriculum approved by educators or known by adults. I'm not even sure they were given out during a class (or even by a teacher- the articles simply refer to an "employee" and also mention the principal as being on temporary leave).

    Either way, this is obviously not something the parents have agreed to their child seeing. Some parents pull their children out of specific classes because it does not agree with the parent's beliefs. But if students are being given items outside of the classroom or at least outside of a lesson, how can the parent control what information their child receives?

    I was under the impression that antichoicers cared deeply about a parent's right to make decisions about what their child sees or is otherwise introduced to. Or even *does* in the case of parental consent laws.

    Posted by: KushielsMoon at May 24, 2010 11:52 PM


    It's what the doll represents that is so threatening. It shows how human a fetus is. That could get the kids thinking. . . about babies. . . in the womb. How will they react years later when they hear of abortion? Will they become pro-life voters as adults, because they were exposed to fetus dolls when they were children? Will the girls become unwilling to abort unplanned pregnancies later as adults? And the boys, will they become unwilling to push their future girlfriends into abortion when they become men? These are horrifying scenarios to hard-core pro-aborts. Anyone who works in an abortion clinic is even more likely be horrified, because pro-life ideas threaten the abortion industry's profits.
    For the culture of death, these fetus dolls truly are shocking and repelling. It has to be labeled unacceptable and suppressed as quickly as possible. Mustn't threaten the future of the death culture.
    Sadly, these people don't even realize they're in the grip of a death culture.

    Posted by: Ceecee at May 24, 2010 11:57 PM


    Marauder I think you have a very different viewpoint regarding sex education than most who identify themselves as bisexual or typical GLBT persons. I am really surprized but I must say I agree with you on your major points. First of all we taught our children sex education at home throughout their pre-school and elementary years (my background is in healthcare) where we instilled our spiritual values and morals along with Biblical teachings from our church. Then I met with my children's teachers before they taught sex education to them in school so I could look at the cirriculum first to see if I felt it was age appropriate and correct (I felt that it was). I told the teachers they could give scientific facts including anatomy and physiology of human reproduction, they could even teach them what types of contraception were available and how they worked, but we did not want the teacher pushing their own moral agenda and we told them so.

    Medical fact: Abstinence is the ONLY 100% protection from STDs, unplanned pregnancy, emotional heartbreak, economic, mental, social and spiritual consequences of sex before marriage. We taught them to save sex for marriage and why and we did not want teachers going against what we were teaching our children. So far, we have been blessed with wonderful young adults who live a Christian lifestyle.

    Posted by: Prolifer L at May 25, 2010 12:03 AM


    Ashley, Why would anybody want to teach kids that same sex intercourse is ok? It would be a really bad idea if you tried going to elementary schools and showing the kids dolls in sexually provocative positions. Think AIDS and procreation;after all that is why evolution gave us sexuality? None of us would be here today if we were gay, so how do you figure it is normal? It is completely ludicrous to think that choosing who to have sex with is beyond a persons control. Gay people go straight and straight people go gay, but white people don't wake up one day and realize they are really black. ugh

    Posted by: truthseeker at May 25, 2010 1:54 AM


    Kushie, Ashley:
    I am not familiar with the law in Texas, but I live in MA, where courts have ruled I have no right to be informed or opt out if my child of any age is to be taught about gay marriage.

    If I want to completely control my child's education, I have to homeschool--and I plan to do so. Liberal humanists in Texas are free to do the same. Of course, liberal humanists don't think sacrifices should be involved in raising children, so instead they'll just scream like a stuck pig everytime they disagree with what children are taught when and demand that children be taught only what they agree with. The problem is that if everyone does that children will have precious little to learn other than math.

    Parents should have the right to opt-out their children from teaching they find controversial. I agree, because that's a right I'd want for my children. Not everyone agrees even on what the facts are sometimes. But the parents in question did not ask that their children be opted out of fetal development, either.

    Posted by: ycw at May 25, 2010 5:19 AM


    According to the news reports, the school administration is saying that these "dolls" were not part of the curriculum. So for all of you who think that this is acceptable, here's a question. Would you approve of a school "employee" giving out condoms to 6th graders with a message about preventing AIDS - in an English class? Would you approve of the handing out of Korans in biology class? And for all of you who say that this just teaches that life begins at conception, what about the rights of parents who don't believe this? There are lots of folks from non faith and faith communities (certain liberal Protestants and most Reformed Jews) who don't believe that life begins at this point. The law, as it stands, does not agree with this either. And as one of the posters said, you guys are the ones who want to be informed of anything related to sex and sexuality issues in the curriculum. Yet, you have no problem with this "doll" which was not even distributed by a science teacher but a school "employee?" (Lunch Lady, Janitor, Secretary???)

    Posted by: Sammi at May 25, 2010 6:05 AM


    "you guys are the ones who want to be informed of anything related to sex and sexuality issues in the curriculum."

    So what is the problem here if prolifers are the ones who want to be informed? Why do the antilifers care about this then if we are the side that want to be informed. Why are employees being disciplined for this but not for pushing clearly liberal agendas? Maybe liberals think elementary is too young to expose children to these fetus dolls, right? I am sure school boards across the country will OK using them in middle/high school during health and science class instead. Go to the school board meetings and see how receptive they are.

    While your at it, start promoting a Day of Silence for respecting marriage between one man and one woman and/or allowing unborn children to live rather than be slaughtered by abortion and see if your schools will participate.

    Our district just had a Day of Silence that promotes gay rights. Parents were not informed about this beforehand. I work there and did not find out until the day before. My student did not participate and spoke a bit during the day and was later bullied by those who remained silent! A foreign language teacher told students that if they did not verbally respond in class, they would recieve a zero for participation for the day. The administration told the teacher she could not require the students to talk for a grade that day. Wow, nothing like supporting teachers in teaching the subject they were hired to teach!

    Public schools have become truly frightening places.

    Posted by: Praxedes at May 25, 2010 7:05 AM


    Sammi, what makes this doll any worse than a baby doll?

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 25, 2010 7:09 AM


    Sammi, I could easily explain to you why I would not want condoms or the Koran passed out in school. But could you explain what your problem is with the unborn baby doll? I'd like a specific answer that addresses WHY it is a problem or how it might harm the children. I don't want a vague answer like "oh it's political", I want to know what harm that baby model will do.

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 25, 2010 7:15 AM


    " And for all of you who say that this just teaches that life begins at conception, what about the rights of parents who don't believe this."

    This is like saying "what about the rights of parents who don't belive that 1+1=2?" Well, sorry, but those parent's beliefs don't change reality.

    Posted by: Lauren at May 25, 2010 7:18 AM


    So Lauren, while your children are at school its perfectly okay with you for any adult to share any information they like with them as long as it's true fact? Even if the adult is not educated or trained to teach children and answer their questions? Even if the information is not part of the school's approved curriculum? Even if the adult may have a motive that you disagree with?

    Like I said, I would have no problem with my daughter being given the little doll and told about life beginning at conception. By her science teacher. Or by me. Or by an educator at our church. Or a doctor or nurse.

    I am just so surprised that no one here sees a problem with the way this school employee felt it was acceptable to share these items with children outside of a biology classroom. The fact that the fetus models and the little cards are sold by pro-life sources proves there was definitely an agenda, but we all knew that anyway. If you claim to believe otherwise you are doing the entire pro-life movement a disservice.

    Posted by: sarajane at May 25, 2010 7:55 AM


    Sarajane, since no one else will answer, could you tell me what the problem is with the baby models? How do they hurt children?

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 25, 2010 8:14 AM


    Sarajane, I already said that this type of thing isn't really something that should just be sprung on kids at lunch, but it's also not the kind of thing that should resault in the suspension of the employee and the principal.

    Tell the person handing out the dolls that school policy doesn't allow giving kids any materials outside of the curiculum, and leave it at that.

    Posted by: Lauren at May 25, 2010 8:23 AM


    KushielsMoon,

    Sometimes when people post links, they comments go straight to the spam folder... still not sure why it does that. Anyway, let us know (and this goes for anyone) if you post something with a link and it doesn't show up, and we'll fish it out of spam for you.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at May 25, 2010 8:25 AM


    The don't, Bethany. That's not the point I'm making.

    When parents send their children to a public school they should be assured that their children are being taught a curriculum that has been approved by the school board, who has been elected by the community. To have school staff "teaching" anything they were not hired to is wrong. Would it be ok with you, Bethany, if I gave your children pictures of naked men and women without your consent and called it a biology lesson? How about if I showed them pictures of naked men and women having sex and told them that this is how life begins? It's a "true fact," correct? Maybe some parents are fine with their children being shown these things. Maybe lots of parents are. But I'm pretty sure that most of them would like to know ahead of time when their kids will be taught this lesson, and by whom. I'm sure they would want to know that the person teaching this lesson is trained to teach children and is prepared to answer any questions they might have. And the lesson isn't being given in, say, spelling class or lunch. That's just inappropriate.

    Unfortunately, I think a lot of people outside of the pro-life movement stereotype pro-lifers as being bible-thumping extremists who are willing to resort to extreme measures in order to make their point. We need to be careful not to engage in activities that make pro-lifers look deceitful or sneaky. Passing out pro-life literature to children in a public school without parental permission is indeed a sneaky way to spread the pro-life message.

    Posted by: sarajane at May 25, 2010 8:26 AM


    But how in the world is a picture of a BABY comparable to pictures of people having sex?

    Why should a depiction of a tiny baby be considered "repelling" or offensive? I don't get that. What exactly is the harm?

    Now, something that actually might be comparable would be if an english teacher was giving students pictures of tadpoles and telling students thaat is how frogs begin life. Would that really be such an outrage?

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 25, 2010 8:34 AM


    Whoever gave the dolls to the kids probably went about it the wrong way. But does that mean the dolls are shocking or repelling? No. Does that mean there's something wrong with telling kids that life begins at conception? No, and life beginning at conception is a scientific fact. I could believe that humans think with their fingernails, but that doesn't mean that I have the right to object if a public school teaches my kid that humans think with their brains.

    "I was under the impression that antichoicers cared deeply about a parent's right to make decisions about what their child sees or is otherwise introduced to."

    Who are these "antichoicers" of whom you speak?

    "Marauder I think you have a very different viewpoint regarding sex education than most who identify themselves as bisexual or typical GLBT persons."

    Ah, but I am not a typical GLBT person. I have sparkly wings and magic powers. ;)

    "Why would anybody want to teach kids that same sex intercourse is ok?"

    Because they believe themselves that it's okay.

    "It would be a really bad idea if you tried going to elementary schools and showing the kids dolls in sexually provocative positions."

    Yeah, it would.

    "Think AIDS and procreation;after all that is why evolution gave us sexuality? None of us would be here today if we were gay, so how do you figure it is normal?"

    By that token, none of us would be here today if we were all abstinent our whole lives, so how do you figure lifelong celibacy is normal?

    If a majority of people were completely gay and didn't have any interest in reproducing, that wouldn't make sense, evolutionary-speaking. But that's not the case.

    "It is completely ludicrous to think that choosing who to have sex with is beyond a persons control."

    Of course it's within a person's control. However, people who are only romantically and sexually attracted to the same sex are not going to be happy with someone of the opposite sex, and are capable of finding loving, emotionally fulfilling relationships with someone of the same sex.

    "Gay people go straight and straight people go gay, but white people don't wake up one day and realize they are really black. ugh"

    Either they're acting in ways contrary to their real inclinations, or they're bisexual.

    "I am not familiar with the law in Texas, but I live in MA, where courts have ruled I have no right to be informed or opt out if my child of any age is to be taught about gay marriage."

    I'm not up on Massachusetts education law - what exactly do they get taught about gay marriage?

    "Our district just had a Day of Silence that promotes gay rights."

    Day of Silence isn't about promoting gay rights, it's about protesting the harrassment and bullying of gay kids.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Silence

    Surely we can all agree that it's wrong to harrass or bully someone.

    "My student did not participate and spoke a bit during the day and was later bullied by those who remained silent!"

    That was wrong of them.

    "A foreign language teacher told students that if they did not verbally respond in class, they would recieve a zero for participation for the day. The administration told the teacher she could not require the students to talk for a grade that day. Wow, nothing like supporting teachers in teaching the subject they were hired to teach!"

    I agree that this was dumb of the administration. Learning foreign languages requires speaking them, and the Day of Silence shouldn't have interrupted the regular running of the class. If a teacher asks what the capital of New York is, a kid can answer by writing "Albany" on a piece of paper and holding it up, but that doesn't work for foreign language classes.

    Posted by: Marauder at May 25, 2010 8:37 AM


    anyone disturbed by the sex ed Curriculum recommended for 8 year olds (that was listed in this post)? Telling children its okay to TOUCH THEMSELVES for sexual pleasure? That's more disturbing than giving out a small fetal model that shows an unborn baby at 11-12 weeks of pregnancy!

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 25, 2010 8:51 AM


    Liz, any parent that is aware of what is in that cirriculum, and still is somehow offended by the fetal models is insane.

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 25, 2010 8:54 AM


    Bethany,

    Personally I would be a little concerned if I found out my child's English teacher was giving a lesson in biology, frog or human. It would raise a red flag. Of course there is nothing wrong with the lesson taught, but that is not what the English teacher is supposed to be teaching. If they are using English class time to teach a different subject for no apparent reason I would be concerned about the sort of people the district was hiring, and I would be curious as to their motives. I would definitely bring my concerns to the school board. Maybe there would be a perfectly reasonable explaination, and that would be fine, just as there may be in this particular situation, but I, as a parent, would want to know what it was.

    Posted by: len at May 25, 2010 9:11 AM


    Len, would you think such a teacher would be worthy of suspension?

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 25, 2010 9:14 AM


    Whoever gave the dolls to the kids probably went about it the wrong way. But does that mean the dolls are shocking or repelling? No. Does that mean there's something wrong with telling kids that life begins at conception? No, and life beginning at conception is a scientific fact. I could believe that humans think with their fingernails, but that doesn't mean that I have the right to object if a public school teaches my kid that humans think with their brains.

    I agree with this 100%!

    I really appreciate your contributions to the discussions here, Marauder. And I like you even more now that I know about your sparkley wings and magic powers! ;)

    Posted by: len at May 25, 2010 9:17 AM


    Bethany,

    On the surface, no, of course not. Just as with the employee at the school in Virginia, the board needs to find out what, exactly, the motives and reasons behind the "lesson" were. If it was done with an innocent intent, say the employee honestly didn't know their actions would be seen as controversial or inappropriate, then no.

    But an employee blatently disregarding school policy is pretty serious. If there are disciplinary policies in place to deal with insubordination, and that is indeed what occurred, then the policies need to be followed. Otherwise it could lead to all kinds of problems in the future. That's why such policies exist.

    Posted by: len at May 25, 2010 9:25 AM


    Ashley and SaraJane, I actually agree in part with you. This sentence, while factually accurate, is impolitic in today's climate:
    "some people believe my life begins at birth..."

    But what I think is interesting is that so little of the reaction is to that sentence. Instead, it's largely a horrified, kneejerk, immature emotional response to the doll itself, which is apparently repelling and disgusting if you start from a certain political pro-death stance. Why do you suppose so much of the reaction is fact-free and emotionally laden with pejoratives?

    There is no comparison between this and homosexuality or sex ed in the class room, and others have explained why more than adequately to those open minded enough to consider the differences.


    As for the idea that only a health teacher has the right to pass something like this out, please. Do you not remember school? Did your teachers truly NEVER discuss topics not strictly related to their specific discipline? My life skills teacher, who was supposed to be teaching high school students about skills like finding an apartment and a job (that was in the syllabus) instead taught an entire term on note-taking and values clarification and situation ethics (none of which were in the syllabus) and several weeks where she invited Planned Parenthood in to indoctrinate us (not on the syllabus).
    That is an egregious example, but my 8th grade geography teacher spent an entire lesson on the politics of the Panama Canal (not in the syllabus) and why we should not have 'given it back' since 'they' never had it in the first place, we built it.
    And my sixth grade math teacher wandered off from time to time on cultural distinctions between the Chinese and Americans that had nothing to do with math, but she thought we should know (she was Chinese) and my fifth grade English teacher often wandered off into science, a topic that interested her greatly, and my home ec teacher in junior high spent a lot of time telling us about her vacation in England. Oh, and my Home Ec teacher in high school talked a lot about Navajo Indian reservations and social conditions there not because there was a home ec connection, but because she had formerly taught on a reservation and it interested her. I had a government teacher who often veered off into discussions of sports, and a psychology teacher who veered off into discussions of economics.
    I doubt that ANY teacher, EVER consistently sticks to one and only one subject- subjects can be interconnected (and are, more often than not), and teachers are human beings, not programmed computers, with interests of their own. For all you know, the employee who passed these out because a family member is 12 weeks along and the employee thought it was interesting and useful for kids to know.

    It would have been wiser to use white out on that one sentence, given the rabid politics of the pro-aborts, but there is nothing factually questionable or inaccurate or even debatable about the information on the card- and it is very telling that the heated reactions have had nothing to do with the accuracy of the information, just emotional freaking out over, "OMG, it's a FETUS! Ew, ick, ick."

    Posted by: DeputyHeadmistress at May 25, 2010 10:15 AM


    "Even if the adult is not educated or trained to teach children and answer their questions? Even if the information is not part of the school's approved curriculum? Even if the adult may have a motive that you disagree with?"

    Yes, even if the adult is 'not educated or trained to teach children and answer their questions' because I do not think it takes special training.
    Yes, even if the information is not part of the school's approved curriculum, because life happens.
    Motives I disagree with? I need to KNOW, not presume those motives. And then there is another question-

    Is it okay for schools to teach that racism is wrong, even though some parents are white supremacists and some are black supremacists?

    Is it okay to teach that women and men are equal, even though some parents disagree?

    Is it okay to teach that about the holocaust even though some deny it?

    Posted by: deputyheadmistress at May 25, 2010 10:54 AM


    I don't know. I still don't like the idea of some stranger trying to push views on abortion onto someone else's kids. We don't know what the employee said to the students, but he clearly had an anti-abortion agenda. I don't believe he'd pass these things out without explaining WHY he was doing it.

    Personally, I think abortion is a completely age-inappropriate topic for elementary schoolers. It's over their heads and is not something they need to be thinking about. I went to a Catholic school for 9 years (K-8), and even they didn't bring up abortion til 7th grade.

    And no, I don't think teaching graphic sex ed to kids in elementary school is okay, either. We learned about sperm and eggs and reproductive organs in 5th grade, and that's about it. None of this nonsense about masturbation and sexual orientation.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 25, 2010 10:55 AM


    This is not about abortion. A fetal model shows the development of a human. We all have been through the developmental process have we not??

    I think all students in high school should be shown exactly what an abortion is and what it does to a developing child. The truth.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 25, 2010 11:06 AM


    I think all students in high school should be shown exactly what an abortion is and what it does to a developing child. The truth.

    I agree completely. I don't think it should be brought up in elementary school, though. At least not with parental permission.

    Just a hypothetical thought: What if, when given the fetal model, a child thought to ask the school employee how the fetus got inside the mother? What sort of response would have been appropriate? The resulting exchange could have opened up a pretty dangerous can of worms for the school administrators, especially if the student asking had parents who felt that sex ed should be taught at home, and only at home.

    Posted by: len at May 25, 2010 11:13 AM


    And I definitely think talking to pre-pubescent kids about abortion could be defined as inappropriately sexual.

    My mom was pregnant when I was in kindergarten. At that point, I had no idea how my sister got in there and assumed it happened by some supernatural force. (I seriously thought that once people got married, babies could form spontaneously, and that's how women got pregnant.) Explaining that some women have sex and have abortions is not appropriate at this age.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 25, 2010 11:19 AM


    "I really appreciate your contributions to the discussions here, Marauder."

    Thanks! *sparkles* :D

    "We don't know what the employee said to the students, but he clearly had an anti-abortion agenda. I don't believe he'd pass these things out without explaining WHY he was doing it."

    You may not believe it, but until we hear one way or the other, I don't think it's fair to assume that he did.

    I don't think elementary school kids ought to hear about abortion in school either. However, looking at the facts as we know them, no one involved in the situation has said that the employee was telling kids about abortion.

    I think there are really three issues here: whether this particular employee should have been giving out the dolls to kids, whether the dolls were appropriate for kids, and whether there's anything "shocking" or "repelling" about the dolls. Maybe the employee wasn't in a position to be giving the dolls to the kids. But does that mean it's inappropriate for elementary school kids to see life-size models of unborn babies at different stages of development, or that there's anything "repelling" about that? No.

    What message does it send to kids when, instead of telling the employee that it's not part of his job to give out the dolls to kids, the authorities start saying publically that the dolls are shocking or repelling? They aren't saying that about boy dolls or girl dolls or Barbie dolls or black dolls or blue-haired mermaid dolls - therefore, the kids get the message that there's something wrong with these particular dolls, something that's, translated into kid language, gross or icky. Therefore, there's something gross or icky about unborn babies. These kids used to BE unborn babies, and not all that long ago, either. Some of their moms are probably pregnant with unborn babies. Guess what, kids? Nine years ago, you were shocking and repelling! And that baby your mom's pregnant with? That's not your new baby sister - not at the moment, anyway. No, until that kid gets born, cleaned up, and starts doing cute things, your sister is shocking and repelling too. Nobody should know what your sister looks like now, or what she's doing inside your mom. That's disgusting and needs to be hidden away from people.

    If I don't have enough money to send my kids to Catholic school, I'm homeschooling. I don't agree with the Catholic Church on every issue, but we're used to each other, and they sure as heck aren't going to tell my kids that unborn babies are shocking and repellent.

    Posted by: Marauder at May 25, 2010 11:34 AM


    I have read the article and the quotations from board members several times and I honestly do not see where any of them are referring to the dolls themselves as "shocking" or "repelling," but rather the DISTRIBUTION of the dolls shocked them. Am I missing something? This is the quote with those terms, emphasis mine:

    "The distribution of the life-like forms among grade school children shocked and repelled some parents and teachers and School Board members who discussed them in a closed meeting this week."

    I'm not accusing anyone of lying, and maybe I did fail to see the portion of the article where people expressed disgust at the figures themselves. Am I wrong?

    Posted by: len at May 25, 2010 11:50 AM


    Also, if the issue isn't just about the employee handing out dolls - if the issue is that the dolls themselves are "shocking" and "repelling" - does that mean kids are going to be discouraged from talking amongst themselves about unborn babies? If a kid brings their mom's latest sonogram to show-and-tell and says "This is my baby sister - she's still in my mom," is that kid going to be reprimanded? What about pregnant teachers? Kids ask pregnant teachers questions about unborn babies all the time. "Hey, Mrs. Peterson - how does that baby eat? Does the baby sleep? Do youo know if it's a boy or a girl?"

    And what if, horror of horrors, a pregnant teacher is talking to the class and suddenly stops because she just felt the baby move? "Are you okay, Mrs. Peterson?" "I'm fine, Jake." "How come you touched your stomach?" "I just felt the baby move." Stop right there, Mrs. Peterson! Don't tell your students something so shocking and repelling!

    It's amazing to me how some pro-choicers can be so retrograde. The abortion-pill-by-computer thing is a throwback to the days when women took various drugs in private to have abortions. The idea that children shouldn't know what unborn babies look like is a throwback to the days when kids weren't supposed to know about how babies grew in the womb. Next they'll decide it's "pro-life" to talk about the purpose of uterine lining, and then we'll have a throwback to the days when the existence of menstruation was a big secret to preteen girls.

    Posted by: Marauder at May 25, 2010 11:58 AM


    Ashley,
    All of my four children know about my abortion. They know they have a sister. She is part of our family. They hang Aubrey's stocking up every Christmas. They know of my regret and grief and my work in the prolife movement to honor my daughter's short life.
    That I am sure will not be discussed in school!! :)
    I am so blessed!!

    Inappropriately sexual??

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 25, 2010 11:58 AM


    Oh, and they also know exactly how their brothers and sister came to be!! How could they not notice me throwing up for 9 weeks and my belly growing huge and feeling their kicking sibling??

    Our family shared the miracles.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 25, 2010 12:02 PM


    Sammi...what dumb analogies.

    First, condoms preventing HIV is debatable. It also deals with behavior (sexual immorality). The Koran is part of a religion. I wouldn't have a problem with my son learning about the Koran or Islam as long as the Bible was also taught. And everything was done in a respectful manner.

    But human fetal development is not a matter of opinion. It is biological FACT and you pro-aborts just can't stand that can you? It just makes you cringe that biology is on our side and so you throw hissyfits lest any children learn the truth about life in the womb and choose to be pure teens who don't need to pay Planned Parenthood for abortions. Its all about money really, when you come right down to it.

    The abortion industry whips all its little puppets like Kushiels Moon and Sammi into a frenzy to deny the truth. Deny! Deny! Deny! All so more money flows into the abortion industry coffers.

    But unfortunately for you pro-aborts we live in the age of technology and information. The truth is that human life begins at conception and we have visual proof. People can google it and see the evidence. No matter how you whine and scream you can't cover up the truth.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at May 25, 2010 12:04 PM


    Well Carla, I guess that's a parent's call. My parents never discussed sex or anything sexual until I started going through puberty, at which point my mom was forced to acknowledge periods. We STILL have trouble talking openly about it. My parents will not use the word "sex." My mom will make backhanded comments: "Well, be careful," "Girls your age are too young for a baby," etc. They were always very hush-hush about that stuff. Which might not be a good thing, but I guess it's a judgment call.

    I still don't think abortion is an appropriate topic to discuss with children. My Catholic school agreed.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 25, 2010 12:13 PM


    My parents never said a word to me about anything sexual. I am hoping to arm my children with knowledge and the truth.

    With 50 million abortions since 1973 when can we tell students about it?? Is it some big secret??
    High schoolers know exactly who is pregnant and who is having abortions. Pretty good time to bring it up I think.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 25, 2010 12:16 PM


    Sorry if I derailed the thread. :(

    Ashley,
    If you click on my name you will see my eldest son.

    Oh, and I am glad you are here. I like discussing things with you.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 25, 2010 12:18 PM


    "And I definitely think talking to pre-pubescent kids about abortion could be defined as inappropriately sexual."

    I agree that the school shouldn't be talking to elementary kids about abortion, but this hand out didn't do that. There was no mention at all about abortion.

    Posted by: Lauren at May 25, 2010 12:51 PM


    "Day of Silence isn't about promoting gay rights, it's about protesting the harrassment and bullying of gay kids."

    Maurader, I can only attest to what I have seen in my district regarding a Day of Silence.

    As far as harrassment and bullying, in my area I am probably one of the biggest advocates in attempting to stop it. Harassment and bullying happens to many kids for many reasons, not just gay kids. I confront boys from harassing girls and vice-versa. I confront Caucasians harassing Hispanics and vice-versa. I confront athletes about harassing learning disabled students and vice-versa, I confront thin kids from bullying heavy kids, I confront straight students from harassing gay students and vice-versa, etc. etc. I still believe a Day of Silence is politically motivated because gay students are not (from what I have seen only) bullied any more or less than any other groups. Bullying and harassing needs to stop PERIOD so why not have a day of silence to stop all of it, including the ultimate bullying of abortion? IMHO, DoS is politically motivated.

    I very much appreciate and hearing your views.

    Posted by: Praxedes at May 25, 2010 12:51 PM


    "My parents never discussed sex or anything sexual until I started going through puberty, at which point my mom was forced to acknowledge periods. We STILL have trouble talking openly about it."

    Oh, wow. I knew about sex and sperm and eggs and all that when I was four, because I asked my mom where babies came from and she always answered any questions I asked her. (Even if, as happened sometimes when I got older, the answer was followed by, "What book are you reading?!") Also, my parents started trying to have another baby when I was about three or so - unsuccessfully, as it turned out - so I went along to a lot of doctor's appointments, and I guess my mom probably explained why she was going to the doctor again, although I don't remember that part. (I remember spinning on the stool in the doctor's office, though.)

    I kind of freaked out my grandma and my great-aunt once when I was four or so - they stopped by our house, and I told them that the doll I was playing with had a penis. (Well, it DID.) My grandma died in 2006 at the age of 89. The first time she got her period, she thought she had some kind of disease and was dying.

    Praxedes: Although things have gotten considerably better in the last decade or so, gay kids used to get bullied at school fairly frequently, while the teachers turned a blind eye or were the bullies themselves. Calling a black kid the n-word was taken very seriously, but yelling "Hit the ball this time, you sissy fag!" at another kid during gym class was not. Gay kids - or kids who were suspected of being gay - didn't necessarily get bullied more than anyone else, but in a lot of places they were the one group that other kids knew they could get away with being mean to. They were silent because no matter what they did, they'd be told that they'd brought it upon themselves, and why couldn't they stop acting so...so...you know what I mean. Stop walking like that down the hall and start going to a few football games and the other kids will stop sticking your head in the toilet and vandalizing your desk.

    I'd love to see Day of Silence expand to be about all bullying. It was started by members of a different generation than the kids who are in school these days, and in some ways it might have outgrown its purpose, while being useful in other ways. I was bullied to the point of suicidal impulses in fifth grade, and to this day, I have no idea why the other kids decided to pick on me. Kids can bully each other over grades or dating or where someone lives or race or the fact that they think another kid's shoelaces are stupid. Kids who get bullied over those things and others deserve a day of recognition and protest too.

    Posted by: Marauder at May 25, 2010 2:16 PM


    I can answer your question of what is the difference between this baby doll and other baby dolls. When kids play with baby dolls, they dress them up, have tea parties, that sort of thing. You obviously can't do that with this doll. Not to mention the fact that kids in 3rd-5th graders shouldn't have to know what an abortion is until they are older, and I'm sure that will make a lot of pro-lifers angry but why would you want to fracture their world at such a young age. I understand that there are a lot of intelligent kids at that age range, but to push either a pro-life or pro-choice agenda on them at that age is just ludicrous. For you to even say that this is just a "human biology lesson" is complete hogwash as well, it's not fooling anybody. It was wrong to do without parental permission, plain and simple. Had they sent out permission slips it probably wouldn't been that big of a deal. They went about it all wrong.

    Posted by: Carey at May 25, 2010 3:17 PM


    "Even if the adult is not educated or trained to teach children and answer their questions? Even if the information is not part of the school's approved curriculum? Even if the adult may have a motive that you disagree with?"

    Yes, even if the adult is 'not educated or trained to teach children and answer their questions' because I do not think it takes special training to teach a child (it takes special training to teach a classroom full of children in a formal setting, which is quite different), or to answer a child's questions. Other adults teach children all the time without special training in teaching children or specialized training in answering their questions.
    Yes, even if the information is not part of the school's approved curriculum, because life happens and there is more to life than the confines of a school's 'approved curriculum.'
    Motives I disagree with? I need to KNOW, not presume those motives. And then there is another question-

    Is it okay for schools to teach that racism is wrong, even though some parents are white supremacists and some are black supremacists?

    Is it okay to teach that women and men are equal, even though some parents disagree?

    Is it okay to teach about the holocaust even though some deny it?

    Is it okay to teach about evolution even though many parents deny it?

    If it is okay to teach a grade schooler that it is okay to touch himself for sexual pleasure and it is okay to teach that child the life stages of a frog, chicken or butterfly, then it is passing strange that it would be 'repellent' or 'dumbfounding' that somebody thinks it is also appropriate to show a child an accurate representation of this particular life state of a human being.

    And no, I would not have a question about it at all if even the janitor, rather than a trained teacher, handed a third grader a small model of a stage of tadpole development or a postcard showing the life cycle of a butterfly. I wouldn't find that weird or unprofessional. I would think it was cool and showed the child that teaching and learning is something of interesting to all adults in every stage, not something limited to professionally trained teachers from 8-3 five days a week, and that other adults besides teachers cared about it.

    Posted by: deputyheadmistress at May 25, 2010 3:40 PM


    Sorry for the repeat reponse above- computer glitch on my end.

    Carey, there is nothing in the card or on the doll that mentions abortion at all. That's your take. Would a third grader who hasn't even heard of abortion make the same assumption you do? I doubt it.

    Kids get educational models all the time. There's the invisible woman/man kit mentioned. I've seen models of planets, molecules, plant cells, tadpoles, dinosaurs in an egg, chrysalises, all models that are not toys, they are models that show what something looks like.
    Does this model look like a fetus at 12 weeks? Yes.
    What does that have to do with abortion or politics?
    Nothing, unless a pro-abortion person wants to politicize basic human biology.
    The 12 week fetus either does or does not look like that, and it either does or does not do the things mentioned on the back of the card, a political agenda not withstanding.

    Doesn't anybody else remember looking at models and slides of lungs polluted with cigarette smoke in school?

    Didn't anybody else have a teacher who got an appendix, gall bladder or kidney stones removed and brought it to school in a jar to show students (even if it wasn't science class)?
    Seriously? Why is a 12 week old unborn child so politically charged and creepy and kidney stones are just kidney stones?

    There is a reason- it's because everybody knows, deep down, that abortion is an American holocaust and they cannot face that reality. They cannot even face the basic physical reality of what a 12 weeks gestation human offspring looks like.

    Posted by: deputyheadmistress at May 25, 2010 4:10 PM


    Catholic schools today aren't the same as they were even 20 years ago. My child in 8th grade is so free to ask the teachers and priests ANYTHING. And they will answer as best they can. The kids ask about the priest/pedophile scandal, abortion, homosexuality, war (one of our priests is a former fighter pilot). They are taught that all bullying is wrong, homosexuality in itself is not sinful, of course abortion is wrong so let's find the root causes for so many abortions (mostly promiscuity and poverty) and lessen those.

    Catholic schools can be expensive, but there are funds in place to ease the burden, and the more kids in the school, the less they cost. Plus, then you don't have to worry about all this nonsense. My child is taught about all the different religions, even going to a synagogue and sharing a Seder meal with some Jewish children. The non-Catholic kids in her class are free to discuss the differences between the Mass and their services. They can pray and discuss politics openly.

    And as far as the gay question goes, I have a problem with it. And I've discussed it with my priest who pretty much feels the same way I do, and I suppose only God truly knows the answer. But... God made everyone in His image...man and woman (I see God as genderless). God made gay people, some born that way. Does He expect them to be celibate? Just as an alcoholic shouldn't drink? Or are gay sexual relatioships within the confines of a marriage ok? Because I have been taught that being gay in and of itself, is not a sin. I can't see a loving God punishing a person he created a certain way to a life of lonliness, if indeed that person does desire a love relationship. I am very confused by what my church teaches on this issue. So I am teaching my child to let God do the judging, but that we should not expect ANYONE to jump around in sexual relationships before marriage.

    Posted by: robin at May 25, 2010 4:26 PM


    "Doesn't anybody else remember looking at models and slides of lungs polluted with cigarette smoke in school?"

    I do, and that was enough evidence for me to never start smoking.
    (Well that, and the second-hand smoke haze at home.)

    What if a child had brought the baby fetus in to show-and- tell? One would hope that the teacher could keep a level head about it.

    God forbid, a child develops a respect for human life. I agree with you, deputyheadmistress - the fact that the fetus baby had no message about abortion included with it means the parents are politicizing this situation, blowing it all out of proportion. My guess is that the parents and teachers who are most offended have been a party to abortion. Maybe the teachers and school board need counseling.

    Posted by: Janet at May 25, 2010 4:27 PM


    "God forbid, a child develops a respect for human life."

    Exactly, Janet.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 25, 2010 5:01 PM


    Carey,
    My children play with the fetal models. I use them when I speak to groups. My children know that is how big THEY were in my womb!! The horror!

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 25, 2010 5:03 PM


    What what you folks say if a pro-choice group distributed dolls that represented fetuses with severe birth defects accompanied by the message that if pro-lifers had their way, you would be forced to give birth to this. What say you "lifers?"

    Posted by: deputyheadmistress at May 25, 2010 4:10 PM

    Please do not equate what happened to my people, at the hands of Christians, with abortion - which is supported by a large percentage of American Jews and the theology of Reformed Judaism. It's obvious that you really don't respect us because, in your world view, we are "baby killers." But rest assured, my people will continue to be at the forefront of Planned Parenthood and efforts to keep abortion safe and legal. Mazel Tov, cuz you're gonna need it to overthrow what many of us have worked for.

    Posted by: judas maccabeus at May 25, 2010 5:29 PM


    All of you make my a@@ tired. Reading of of this is giving a person a headache, when I went to school all of this was not a issue we went to to school to learn not care what a baby looks likes at any age, we wernt given plastic dolls with papers attached, allthough I did do the egg baby thing in HIGH SCHOOL, when all of us were ready for stuff like that, what is wrong with people now a days what goes through their heads, pushing sh@#$ on 3rd graders how old are they?????? remember what you used to think of when you were their age, did you think of all that or did you think of running home to see what treat you were going to get for being good in school. And you wonder why some people home school their child.

    Posted by: Anderson at May 25, 2010 5:44 PM


    I would think Jews should remember that children in ancient times were sacrificed to the "god" Molach and what one of God's commandments, as given to Moses, is: Thou Shall not Kill / Thou Shall not Murder.


    Killing is killing, no matter the age of the person, from the unborn child to the elderly adult.

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 25, 2010 6:06 PM


    deputyheadmistress- My point of view is exactly the way anybody with common sense would take it. When I was in third grade they gave out apples not fetus dolls. I guess if you're trying to mount an army to fight something like abortion, it would be best to take the same road the tobacco companies took with smoking. "Hook them while they're young".

    I've said my peace. Good day to you all and God Bless.

    Posted by: Carey at May 25, 2010 6:21 PM


    now that is really cool, Robin, getting to share a Seder meal. I bet that was a very cool experience for your child.

    I wonder if parents and the school board would freak out if this had been an ultrasound picture a child had brought in for show and tell. Perhaps to tell about themselves or perhaps a sibling that is going to be born soon. What would the reaction be then? And this would be a 3D or 4D ultrasound, not a grainy black and white one.

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 25, 2010 7:28 PM


    I'm adding this to my five-inch thick file titled, "Why I homeschool my kids and will not send them to a government school." Wow...human development is "repulsive." I see a lot of self-loathing in that statement.

    I personally have never understood the people who have children who also support abortion, or God forbid, have one. It's one thing to be ignorant of the value of human life before you've ever had a child, but quite another to support the destruction of a child after you've carried one under your heart for nearly a year.

    Posted by: Dawn at May 25, 2010 7:29 PM


    "My guess is that the parents and teachers who are most offended have been a party to abortion."

    This was my first thought too.

    Posted by: Praxedes at May 25, 2010 8:29 PM


    Carey, 3:17

    I can answer your question of what is the difference between this baby doll and other baby dolls. When kids play with baby dolls, they dress them up, have tea parties, that sort of thing. You obviously can't do that with this doll.


    This is the best you've got? The only difference between this toy and other baby dolls is that you can't dress it? Seriously?

    That doesn't stop my daughter from playing with them. She hugs them and plays with them just like her other toys.

    Not to mention the fact that kids in 3rd-5th graders shouldn't have to know what an abortion is until they are older, and I'm sure that will make a lot of pro-lifers angry but why would you want to fracture their world at such a young age.

    Yeah, cause when looking at a little baby kids automatically think "abortion!" Right.

    Can you point out exactly where the leaflet said "abortion" on it?

    I understand that there are a lot of intelligent kids at that age range, but to push either a pro-life or pro-choice agenda on them at that age is just ludicrous.

    It's never ludicrous to promote respect for human life.

    For you to even say that this is just a "human biology lesson" is complete hogwash as well, it's not fooling anybody. It was wrong to do without parental permission, plain and simple.

    Just curious..what's your opinion on parental consent for abortion?

    Had they sent out permission slips it probably wouldn't been that big of a deal. They went about it all wrong.

    You haven't even been able to express what was the problem with the babies, except that *gasp* you can't dress them or play tea party with them....you should have to get a permission slip for THAT?

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 25, 2010 9:36 PM


    I read what I wrote and I'm apologize if I'm being overly sarcastic ... I haven't had much sleep and my kids have been sick so I'm not in the best of moods!

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 25, 2010 9:57 PM


    Oh, the horror at showing schoolchildren what they looked like when they were inside their mommy's tummy!

    Funny how merely showing a doll is considered worse than actually killing "the real thing" - doll is illegal, killing the human is legal. Bizarre.

    Posted by: Shirley at May 25, 2010 10:07 PM


    "When kids play with baby dolls, they dress them up, have tea parties, that sort of thing. You obviously can't do that with this doll."

    So what? When I was a kid I played with dolls I made out of champagne corks, and I couldn't dress them up either.

    "Seriously? Why is a 12 week old unborn child so politically charged and creepy and kidney stones are just kidney stones?"

    Yeah.

    "God made gay people, some born that way. Does He expect them to be celibate? Just as an alcoholic shouldn't drink? Or are gay sexual relatioships within the confines of a marriage ok? Because I have been taught that being gay in and of itself, is not a sin. I can't see a loving God punishing a person he created a certain way to a life of lonliness, if indeed that person does desire a love relationship."

    That's my take on it too. Why would God make someone gay, make other people gay, make it possible for gay people to fall in love, and then decide gay people shouldn't have with each other what straight people have with each other because when gay people do it it's a sin?

    "remember what you used to think of when you were their age, did you think of all that or did you think of running home to see what treat you were going to get for being good in school."

    My parents didn't need to bribe me so I'd be good in school. Maybe your parents should have bribed you so you'd quit using run-on sentences.

    "Please do not equate what happened to my people, at the hands of Christians, with abortion - which is supported by a large percentage of American Jews and the theology of Reformed Judaism."

    Judas, I love the name - I did a paper on the Maccabees in college - but the fact is that abortion takes the life of a human being, and has taken the lives of more human beings than the Nazis did during the Holocaust. Opposing abortion has nothing to do with anti-Semitism.

    Also, what religion do you think the majority of the American, British, and French troops who fought to overthrow Hitler belonged to? Thousands and thousands of Christians died so that Hitler would stop oppressing and killing "your people," so don't you dare act as though the Nazis were Christians in any true sense of the word. My late grandfather was a devout Catholic all his life, and he lived with constant pain for the majority of his life because he got his leg torn up by shrapnel fighting the Axis powers. My other grandfather, equally Catholic, spent the war finding land mines in North Africa. I also have a great-great-grandfather who fought for the Union - for a country he'd only recently come to - in order to reunite America and free the slaves. Want to guess what religion he was?

    It's tragically ironic that a people who were subjected to such brutal, senseless slaughter within recent memory would decide the brutal, senseless slaughter of other people is morally acceptable. You don't think abortion is brutal? It rips apart the bodies of living, growing human beings, tearing limbs apart. You don't think abortion is senseless? Abortion is the killing of certain beings because other human beings have decided their lives are expendable.

    Posted by: Marauder at May 25, 2010 10:08 PM


    Oh, the horror of showing schoolchildren what they looked like when they were inside their mommy's tummy!

    Funny how merely showing a doll is considered worse than actually killing "the real thing" - doll is illegal, killing the human is legal. Bizarre.

    Posted by: Shirley at May 25, 2010 10:09 PM


    "What what you folks say if a pro-choice group distributed dolls that represented fetuses with severe birth defects accompanied by the message that if pro-lifers had their way, you would be forced to give birth to this. What say you "lifers?"

    Give birth to "THIS"? What is "THIS"? This...thing? This... monster? Or... this human being who, through no fault of their own, is unfortunately and sadly quite sick?

    What is so disgusting about a disabled pre-born child that you can only bring yourself to refer to them as "this"?

    And as much as I support the pro-life agenda, I'm not sure the teacher handled this in the best way possible.

    Posted by: JoMama at May 25, 2010 10:27 PM


    From: judas maccabeus

    What what you folks say if a pro-choice group distributed dolls that represented fetuses with severe birth defects accompanied by the message that if pro-lifers had their way, you would be forced to give birth to this. What say you "lifers?"

    JM, we adopted a child with more than one severe birth defect and I find the dehumanizing way you refer to such a child deeply disturbing and utterly heartless.
    I would not have a problem with models of fetuses with severe birth defects being passed out. Why do you assume there is something horrifying and scary about accurate depictions of people with severe birth defects?

    I would have a problem with such a model being accompanied by fact-free emotional propaganda such as you describe.

    There is no comparison between the dishonest, emotional, sneering message that if pro-lifers have their way you'll be forced to give birth to _this_" with a simple list of biological facts about this particular stage in fetal development.

    There is something evil about referring to disabled people as 'this' thing that should be destroyed. There is something evil with thinking that the disabled deserve to die for their disabilities and that to have a disabled child is a horrible fate. It is evil to send that message to children or anybody. The Nazis, in addition to killing off six million Jews, started their death practices by murdering the disabled.

    Abortion *is* an American holocaust.

    Posted by: Deputyheadmistress at May 25, 2010 10:33 PM


    Deputy Headmistress, I apologize. I was taken aback by your wording, but now having read the rest of the posts, I am assured that that is not actually your feeling on the matter. Perhaps I should read more before commenting next time, eh?

    Posted by: JoMama at May 25, 2010 10:36 PM


    JoMama, No worries. It wasn't my wording that upset you- I was quoting Judas Maccabee and perhaps didn't make that clear. I wholeheartedly agree with your take on that wording. It is awful, and I thought your respons was right on target (except the erroneous attribution;-D)

    Posted by: deputyheadmistress at May 25, 2010 11:13 PM


    When I was in a Communication Skills class, my teacher devoted TWO FULL WEEKS to promoting gay rights.
    Not in the curriculum. Not even remotely so. How can being more effective in public speaking be related to gay rights?
    She made us read articles about gay people being shot, and she even passed out materials, and made us take a "homophobic" test in which we were rated for our "prejudice against gays." These scores went into our grades.
    She was not suspended, not spoken to, nothing at all happened to her, even though many, many parents complained.

    Funny.

    Posted by: Abel at May 26, 2010 1:42 AM


    Completely ridiculous.

    Posted by: Lise at May 26, 2010 10:45 AM


    Carla--
    And these groups you speak to...would they happen to be Pro-Life related? I rest my case.

    Posted by: Carey at May 26, 2010 12:27 PM


    Not all of them. I rest my case.


    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 26, 2010 1:04 PM


    Carey,
    Please answer Bethany's questions.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 26, 2010 1:05 PM


    Carey, you side stepped my questions and said you'd said your piece and were done. But you've come back to 'rest your case' based on an assumption made before you had all the facts.

    You say that 'anybody with common sense' would see these dolls as anti-choice tools, as you do. That's argument by assertion, and I think also poisoning the well, and it's a logical fallacy. It is simply *not* a given that only those who share your assumptions have common sense.

    Furthermore, as I pointed out, the dolls were given to students in grades 3, 4, and 5. YOU assume the dolls are about abortion (even though they are not depicted as dismembered or burned or otherwise disfigured by abortion procedures, even though abortion is nowhere mentioned on the cards that accompany them). I asked you if you really thought that was what the recipients of the dolls would assume. Interesting that you prefer to side step that question. I think it's obvious that no, that would not occur to these children unless abortion is already something talked about at home. You are imposing your world view and assumptions where they do not fit.

    Carla has informed you that your other assumption- that she only used these dolls in pro-life situations, is false. You rested your case on a false assumption. Does this give you pause for thought?

    Incidentally, I, too have used one of these dolls when I was pregnant to show my children what the baby looked like at about that stage. I showed it to other children, too, children who asked me about my pregnancy. And my kids had one in their toybox for a while and played with it in their dollhouse. Sometimes they pretended the babydoll was a baby (they wrapped it in a handkerchief for a blanket) and sometimes they stuffed it under another doll's dress and pretended the doll was a pregnant mommy.

    We've moved around a lot (husband is retired military) and in state after state (and in at least one DOD school on an AFB overseas) we found that in the fifth grade part of the sex ed curriculum including handing condoms to the kids and letting them practice putting them on fruits and vegetables, and parents who objected were ostracized, ridiculed, and condemned as Puritans and Prudes. In the DOD school we only found out because a teacher in the school called the local homeschool group leader and told him they were doing this at school and they had been told not to tell the parents, but she was horrified and wanted the word out. She was also afraid for her job if anybody knew she told.

    You know, in the prudish early 1900s, according to Orwell's The Merry War (also known as Keep the Aspidistra Flying), one could only look at pictures of fetal development in books at the library if you could prove you were a medical student with a need to see such things. They were kept behind the desk, with other smutty images.

    This freaking out over an accurate, lifesized (which means maybe two inches big) plastic model of a human being in a stage of development we all have gone through strikes me as more than Victorian prudery, and I, too, would appreciate it if somebody finding these dolls so awful would answer Bethany's questions.

    Posted by: deputyheadmistress at May 26, 2010 2:37 PM


    I was just looking at the website where one may purchase these dolls and my 4-year-old son came up and saw it and his face lit up with a huge smile and he exclaimed, "Babies!" Then proceeded to point out the "small babies" to me and "another small baby" and "another small baby." But nothing about abortion ;) Then I told him that he and his little brother and sister were once small babies like that and that mommy and daddy were once small babies like that too. He then proceeded to say, "And Grandma. Grandma was a small baby like that." And started naming other members of our family as well. A 4-year-old child can get it. Why can't grown adults and members of this school board in question?

    Oh and... might I just point out that Hitler and many of the SS and on down were heavily involved in the Occult...

    Posted by: Julie P. at May 26, 2010 2:59 PM


    What a big fiasco about giving a developing "fetus" doll. I am an old grandma who would simply say "look at this beautiful baby doll" That was you when you were waiting to be born." I carried you close to my heart because I love you" That's enough biological facts- 1 step at a time with the doll. Let the children be children. Instead modern mothers would choose a Barbie Doll & demean that beautiful unborn baby doll. I think modern mothers are stupid & cannot think with common sense. Fetus, a word that makes mothers jump to abortion immediately. How stupid & sad.

    Posted by: ummadeb at May 26, 2010 3:06 PM


    ummadeb...amen!

    Posted by: Sydney M. at May 26, 2010 3:09 PM


    These dolls can be purchased at Pro-Life sites(thank you for that link Bethany) so it screams Pro-Life agenda. For somebody to have the belief that life does not begin at conception is their business and it doesn't mean it's not a "reality" to them. Learning about the stages of how a baby grows is one thing(same goes for butterflies), but to give out a doll that has a very "pro-life" message to it is totally different. And yes, it was a pro-life message.
    I never said there was anything wrong with wanting
    to teach children the importance of life, but to
    push your agenda on somebody else's children is
    totally wrong, plain and simple. Just like some of you would not want a school handing out condoms(which to me is totally unrealistic), other parents do not want somebody else's beliefs pushed onto their child. As if you didn't already know, I am pro-choice. I respect people who are pro-life because it's your decision, but I don't think anybody should be allowed to dictate what
    a woman can or can not do with/to their body. It's between them and God, nobody else. Has abortion been used more as a birth control method? You bet it has, I blame the parents and the schools for that. If they actually taught proper sex education in ALL schools, then maybe it wouldn't be. When I went to school there was nothing taught along the lines of sex-ed, it was only "Not until you are married!" The reality of it is that kids don't wait until they are married, and most cases they don't wait until they are out of High School. It's
    sad, but that's the way it is. I don't know what other questions you want me to answer, so if I missed one, sorry.

    deputyheadmistress-I did say that, and the only reason I chose to respond again was because Carla felt the need to be sarcastic about her children playing with the dolls.

    Posted by: Carey at May 26, 2010 3:53 PM


    Carey, you said,"...but I don't think anybody should be allowed to dictate what
    a woman can or can not do with/to their body." If it were only the woman's body involved, I could care less. I would not be on the sidewalks if women were going in to have tonsillectomies, rhinoplasty or breast augmentation. It's what an abortion does to her LIVING HUMAN CHILD within her that pro-lifers call, rightly so, a human rights violation. BTW, there are plenty of laws that tell us what we can and cannot do with our bodies. Our rights extend to the point where another's are infringed upon: i.e. the preborn's life is ended violently in an abortion. You've heard the phrase, 'Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose' ? Please educate yourself about what happens in an abortion. Not HER body, should never be ANYONE'S *choice*. You support this?

    Posted by: klynn73 at May 26, 2010 4:29 PM


    Klynn73--I know everything that happens in an abortion, I've seen one. In High School it was part of our Health class to watch a video of one, and yes, even seeing that I still don't think anybody should tell a woman what she can do with her body and that includes everything inside. It's her business and she is the one that has to deal with any consequences in the aftermath, not me or anybody else.

    Posted by: Carey at May 26, 2010 4:39 PM


    These dolls can be purchased at Pro-Life sites(thank you for that link Bethany)

    Oh, did I out the pro-life movement? (since it is such a huge secret that pro-lifers use accurate fetal models to educate people on what the biological reality of what goes on inside the womb?)

    so it screams Pro-Life agenda

    You got us! Ouch!
    The pro-life agenda: to promote respect for human life. So horrible!

    For somebody to have the belief that life does not begin at conception is their business and it doesn't mean it's not a "reality" to them.

    Oh absolutely.

    And if anyone doesn't believe that the world is round, or that 2 + 2 = 4, that doesn't mean it is not "reality" to them then, right? Let's be sure to keep people in the dark when they believe things that aren't true, by all means!

    Learning about the stages of how a baby grows is one thing(same goes for butterflies), but to give out a doll that has a very "pro-life" message to it is totally different. And yes, it was a pro-life message.

    What was offensive about the message, Casey? That it accurately stated that life begins before birth?

    I never said there was anything wrong with wanting to teach children the importance of life, but to push your agenda on somebody else's children is totally wrong, plain and simple.

    Where was an agenda "pushed" on children? Looks to me that they were given accurate information and there was nothing about abortion whatsoever on the card.

    By the way, the fact that you believe that fetal model could sway a child to be pro-life proves that even you know that simple facts can change minds and NOT towards abortion. Scary isn't it, thinking that these children could actually have a mind of their own and make up their own mind based on FACTS and not on ignorance.

    The only way to keep yourself pro-abortion is to keep yourself in the dark, away from facts- and towards your own made up "reality". (ie: unborn babies are blobs of goo and are icky)

    Just like some of you would not want a school handing out condoms(which to me is totally unrealistic), other parents do not want somebody else's beliefs pushed onto their child.

    As I asked earlier and you never answered- what harm has been done to a child who receives the doll? What harm is done, casey, any more than receiving a regular baby doll? The worst thing you could come up with about the doll is that "you can't dress it". I can come up with a heck of a lot more things wrong with the promotion of condoms. LEGITIMATE problems. Let me hear a LEGITIMATE problem with these dolls.

    As if you didn't already know, I am pro-choice.

    No, you are pro-abortion. I am pro-choice to do a lot of things, but never to kill another person. Where is the child's choice? You only support choice of one person to kill an unborn child.

    I respect people who are pro-life because it's your decision, but I don't think anybody should be allowed to dictate what a woman can or can not do with/to their body.

    When a woman is pregnant, it is not just her body. (unless you believe that women temporarily are hermaphrodites when they're pregnant with boys.

    It's between them and God, nobody else


    No, there is another person involved.

    . Has abortion been used more as a birth control method? You bet it has, I blame the parents and the schools for that.

    Why is that a bad thing, Casey? Why is abortion as birth control wrong?

    If they actually taught proper sex education in ALL schools, then maybe it wouldn't be.

    Again, why is it a problem? And I notice that among the schools that have the sex education that YOU want them to have, girls are aborting just as much, if not more than other schools. Why is that, if you believe that sex education is the solution?

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 26, 2010 5:07 PM


    It's her business and she is the one that has to deal with any consequences in the aftermath, not me or anybody else.

    It is her baby who suffers the ultimate consequence: the death penalty - for simply existing

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 26, 2010 5:20 PM


    Casey, the question I'd most like to hear an answer to is, "why is abortion used as birth control wrong"?

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 26, 2010 5:26 PM


    I still don't think anybody should tell a woman what she can do with her body and that includes everything inside. It's her business and she is the one that has to deal with any consequences in the aftermath, not me or anybody else.

    Carey, what's your opinion of mothers who shoot up, smoke crack or drink heavily during their pregnancies, then?

    ANYBODY ELSE = her dead child. Can't get more affected than that. And believe it or not, our entire culture "deals with" the consequences of abortion. Why would deeming life expendable based on others' opinions of it be dangerous? Think about it. Imagine yourself in a vulnerable position.

    To mention only one of those consequences: legalized abortion was supposed to eliminate child abuse, right? How's that working out for us? Should it really surprise us when angst-filled children bring weapons to school and *choice* their classmates? Or that a couple throws their live newborn son in a dumpster? Another teen stabs her baby 135 times? Or that Susan Smith drove her two sons into a lake because her boyfriend didn't want them? We are an entire Survivor Generation whose lives had no value unless our mothers felt like it. That affects people to their very core.

    Posted by: klynn73 at May 26, 2010 5:40 PM


    "Not until you are married!" The reality of it is that kids don't wait until they are married, and most cases they don't wait until they are out of High School."

    In my parent's generation, many people waited to have sex until marriage. Around what time did this turn Casey? Why do you think it did?

    If you can't answer this, you need to do some homework.

    Posted by: Praxedes at May 26, 2010 5:48 PM


    by the way, whatever happened to teaching the
    basics: reading, writing and arithmetic?

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 26, 2010 6:02 PM


    Hi Carey.

    My children do play with fetal models. (sarcasm removed)

    Liz,
    EXACTLY!! The Three R's please.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 26, 2010 7:23 PM


    First of all, for some of you who didn't read it, my name is Carey, not Casey, lol.
    Second of all, I don't appreciate your sarcasm Bethany, that was an honest thank you for that link and not me being a jerk about it the way you were. I never said abortion being used as birth control was wrong, not once. Maybe you need to go back and read my comment again?
    Once again, several of you on here have proven my point and while I respect people who say that they are Pro-Life, I do not respect the ones who do nothing but make fun of, be mean to, and act like a group of jacka**es to somebody who doesn't agree with your opinion. And yes, it is between the woman and God only. You sit around and judge people for their support for abortion. It's not your job to judge, let the big man do His work.
    My opinion(as if it mattered to anybody here) of pregnant women that shoot up or drink while they are pregnant is that I don't have one. Again, not my body, not my life. How, might I ask, was legalizing abortion supposed to stop the child abuse rate? You can't blame abortion on a child taking a gun to school, that would be the job of the parents to not have bothered with their kid enough to know something was wrong. A parent who beats the life out of their child or throws a newborn baby into a dumpster isn't the fault of abortion being legal either. It's the person's choice to do these things, and in the end they'll have to answer for it all. Does it break my heart that things like abortion, school shootings and small children being killed by their parents? Of course it does, I do have a soul, but I won't tell a woman what to do with her body and as far as the rest of the horrors in the world go, there's nothing to be done. It's human nature and it's life.

    Posted by: Carey at May 26, 2010 7:28 PM


    "You sit around and judge people for their support for abortion. It's not your job to judge, let the big man do His work."

    Carley, by coming here to Jill's aren't you judging those who know abortion is murder and want it to stop? I am part of the Body of Christ. Part of my job is to help The Big Guy's Will Be Done here on Earth.

    "You can't blame abortion on a child taking a gun to school, that would be the job of the parents to not have bothered with their kid enough to know something was wrong. A parent who beats the life out of their child or throws a newborn baby into a dumpster isn't the fault of abortion being legal either."

    Violence begets Violence. The above are all violent acts. Abortion beats the Life out of a human as well, Caley. Abortion is a Violent act and it brings on more Violence.

    But it's your free-will to keep head buried in sand.

    Posted by: Praxedes at May 26, 2010 8:11 PM


    And yet again, rudeness for the sake of rudeness rears it's ugly head. The name is Carey, not Caley, not Casey. I came here to put my opinion in the ring, I even stated that it would have been no problem if they had had parental permission. Yet here I am being accused of having my head in the sand? Maybe some of you should get off your crosses, somebody else might need the wood.

    See ya!

    Posted by: Carey at May 26, 2010 8:20 PM


    "How, might I ask, was legalizing abortion supposed to stop the child abuse rate?"

    Oh forgot to address this one. What year were you born? When proaborts were advocating against the rights of the unborn, they promised that legalized abortion would STOP CHILD ABUSE. Their faulty rational was "All Children Wanted." If only 'wanted' children were born, child abuse would be non-existent. Same mentality as those who believe we need to have war for peace and sex for virginity.

    The problem with common sense is it's not very common.

    Posted by: Praxedes at May 26, 2010 8:25 PM


    I for one try to prevent others from being nailed to the wood. 'Wood' hope you would start doing the same Carey.

    Thanks!

    Posted by: Praxedes at May 26, 2010 8:30 PM


    First of all, for some of you who didn't read it, my name is Carey, not Casey, lol.

    Okay sorry about that. It looked like Casey but I'm tired.

    Second of all, I don't appreciate your sarcasm Bethany, that was an honest thank you for that link and not me being a jerk about it the way you were.

    You used the fact that they are used by pro-lifers as a way to imply that we have some kind of nefarious agenda.

    I never said abortion being used as birth control was wrong, not once. Maybe you need to go back and read my comment again?

    You implied there was something wrong with it when you said "Has abortion been used more as a birth control method? You bet it has, I blame the parents and the schools for that."

    And then you offered a solution for the "problem":
    "If they actually taught proper sex education in ALL schools, then maybe it wouldn't be."

    So, is it a problem or isn't it?

    And yes, it is between the woman and God only.

    Please explain how the unborn baby is not involved?

    You sit around and judge people for their support for abortion. It's not your job to judge, let the big man do His work.

    Actually, we are commanded in the Bible to rescue those who are led to slaughter. It's not about judging, it's about saving lives.

    Does it break my heart that things like abortion, school shootings and small children being killed by their parents? Of course it does, I do have a soul, but I won't tell a woman what to do with her body and as far as the rest of the horrors in the world go, there's nothing to be done. It's human nature and it's life.

    Abortion breaks your heart? Can you explain why that is? It breaks my heart too, but I think it must be for completely different reasons. It breaks my heart because an innocent and defenseless baby loses his or her life for doing absolutely nothing wrong- but just for simply being alive. How about you? Is that the reason abortion breaks your heart?

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 26, 2010 10:20 PM


    I even stated that it would have been no problem if they had had parental permission.

    Yes, you did say that. But you forgot to explain why a tiny baby doll is such a threat that there should even be a permission slip in the first place.

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 26, 2010 10:32 PM


    Does it break my heart that things like abortion, school shootings and small children being killed by their parents? Of course it does, I do have a soul, but I won't tell a woman what to do with her body and as far as the rest of the horrors in the world go, there's nothing to be done. It's human nature and it's life.

    The difference, of course, between abortion, school shootings, and small children being killed by their parents is that one of those things is protected by law, and the other two are not.

    That is a disgrace.

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at May 26, 2010 10:36 PM


    It boggles my mind when I hear people saying "no one is 'pro-abortion,' just 'pro-choice'"; yet, those same people have such a problem with this kind of thing.
    If you don't like abortion, and you generally don't want women to have them, WHY would you be against this kind of display of human development - basic scientific fact - that would incline people against choosing abortion even before they might be placed in that situation??

    I completely agree with the above comments - if schools can hand out condoms to middle school kids, why in the world would they not be able to teach children about all stages of human biology? utterly ridiculous.

    Posted by: maria at May 27, 2010 4:49 PM


    This story made http://detentionslip.org ! Check it out for all the crazy headlines from our schools.

    Posted by: Hall Monitor at May 28, 2010 6:19 PM



    Post a comment:




    Remember Me?

    (you may use HTML tags for style)

    Please enter the letter "m" in the field below: