College (SDCC), Teri James, 29, was fired for engaging in premarital sex.
She was pulled into her supervisor’s office, asked if she was pregnant (she
was), and then let go. Despite signing a contract which included a provision
agreeing not to engage in “sexually immoral behavior including premarital sex,”
Teri is suing.
her now-husband, even though they were aware he had premarital sex as well.
especially in religious schools where the code of conduct is held in high
regard. And perhaps Teri won’t win the suit because of the contract she voluntarily
signed. But still the question remains: are “lifestyle contracts” that tie pregnancy
to your career and finances a good idea from a pro-life perspective?
pregnant and they took away my livelihood.” This disturbs me. Because of
her pregnancy, Teri was stigmatized and she lost her job. That’s not exactly a “Choose
Life!” message, is it? If we aren’t going to actively help pregnant women in
need, we could at least try not to hurt them. And does anyone else see the
irony in throwing pregnant women under the bus in the name of setting a good
example-setting was the true reason for Teri’s termination. In a Florida case
last year, the court determined that a school may have fired a woman not because she
got pregnant while unmarried, but because the school didn’t want to find a
replacement for her while she would be on maternity leave. Considering SDCC
hired Teri’s fiancé right after firing her for premarital sex with her fiancé, dodging
maternity leave costs seems all the more likely.
concerned with the example Teri has set. In that case I ask you: is it more
pro-life to discourage premarital sex or to encourage support of pregnant women?