TODAY Health - Catholic school teacher says she was fired over fertility treatments

A brief discussion on the other case:
Supreme Court Bars Narcoleptic Lutheran Teacher's Suit Against Church School - News - ABA Journal
The Lutheran minister was refused to be rehired after attempting to return to work after narcolepsy disability leave. Such a move by an employer would be illegal for any regular employer.

Plus, I know of no actual Lutheran religious doctrine against narcolepsy or disability leave. But the court ruled unanimously that it was a first amendment issue to allow the church to violate the law.

In the case of Catholicism, there is no question as to the church's stance on in vitro fertilization. It's against it.

But by the same token, Justice Robert's own words may help establish what could be a clear boundary which could make the difference (from the last link)
Or, depending on whether this teacher is considered to fall under the same rule, it could have the exact same outcome.

Roberts said Perich qualified as a “minister” and the Constitution barred the state from influencing a church’s selection of such personnel.

“By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the free exercise clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments,” Roberts wrote. “According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the establishment clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.”

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

I've been predicting for a long time that, given enough leash, antichoicers would come out publicly against contraception and fertility treatment next.
Now that day has come. The antichoice movement has shown it's true- and remarkably ugly- face.
It was never about saving fetuses.
It was always about preventing women from controlling their own reproductive functions, and therefore their own lives.

Except the article shows the opposite is true...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

For many women, in vitro is the only "infertility treatment" that will help at all.
Other fertility treatments may be hormonal or involve fixing an anatomical problem, but for many infertile women, an egg will never be able to be fertilized inside their own body, either because they are not producing eggs, or because a problem with their fallopian tubes (such as scarring) will not allow an egg to descend from the ovary and be fertilized.
Their only option is to have eggs removed, fertilized outside their body, and then implanted back into their uterus (or, in the case of women without eggs, donor eggs may be fertilized and implanted), aka "IVF".

What's wrong with it? Well, it's impossible to remove just one egg from the ovary.
A number of eggs are removed, and typically a number of eggs are fertilized and then cryogenically frozen and stored, so that subsequent attempts can be made if the first implantation fails.
This is what the church objects to- that perhaps a dozen eggs are fertilized, and not all will be used.
But the unused fertilized eggs need not be discarded.
There are frozen embryo storage facilities (such as Snowflakes) where frozen embryos can be stored indefinitely, and then "adopted" and implanted into other women.

So, yes, if in fact IVF is a woman's only option for getting pregnant, and someone objects to that, then they are objecting to her controlling her own life and exercising her own reproductive choices. They are telling her that she can't have a biological child, if they are objecting to the only means by which she can have one.

Seriously? You feel redeemed by this story? Let's takes that sentence apart. Perhaps I can show you why that's nuts. I doubt it, but let's give it a shot.

Where is all this leash? Would attacks on the church restricting them from exercising they're right to oppose doctrine contrary to theirs be what you refer to as a lengthened leash?

So this one case, concerning the decision of one Catholic school qualifies as all antichoicers, does it?

Thought you'd just slip that bogus, irrelevant claim in, and nobody would notice, right?

More hysterical, generality, manufactured as outrage against a much larger group. One church has a religious objection to one form of fertility treatment.

What you're claiming has a reality problem.

One church which is the largest single religious denomination in the United States, comprising almost a quarter of the population.
One form of fertility treatment which is the only option for most truly infertile women (women who only need a boost of hormones or a minor anatomical repair are not actually infertile; they only suffer from impaired fertility, which might be only temporary, even without treatment).

With IVF, even a woman without ovaries can give birth to a biological child. Even a woman who has never produced a single egg can give birth. Even an elderly woman, long past menopause, can give birth with IVF (in conjunction with hormone therapy).
Any woman with a uterus can give birth with IVF.
As such, IVF is the only true "infertility treatment". All others are geared toward assisting women who are fertile but whose fertility is impaired conceive more quickly and easily than they might without treatment.

And that's why the church objects.
If unwanted childbirth is an appropriate punishment for having sex, then the inability to produce children must also be an appropriate punishment for something or other, in their view.

Everything you wrote here has NOTHING to do with what my response was to your accusation...

You said "I've been predicting for a long time that, given enough leash, antichoicers would come out publicly against contraception and fertility treatment next." and I responded with the actual comment from the article..."The diocese tells TODAY that is supports infertility treatments for its employees, just not in vitro fertilization, which the church believes contradicts its right-to-life beliefs."...

You can talk about IVF until your blue in the dace, but that won't change the fact that you accused "antichoicers" () of coming out against fertility treatments when that is a blatant lie...They are ONLY against ONE KIND...The kind that destroys embryos...They are NOT against every other kind...

That's like me saying "I don't like the Mets" and you responding with "cnredd doesn't like baseball."...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

I was just reading this hilarious one at HuffPo where this lefty guy is going from isolated incidents like the above to here...

John Blumenthal: Rise Up Ladies! If Your Man's a Republican Stop Having Sex With Him

Why it starts to get humorous is he goes from there to an idea Democrat women should withhold sex from Republican men (cause they're a bunch of slavers, see).

How can visions of Helen Thomas, Whoopi Goldberg, and Joy Behar not go through your head, and make you smile.

I don't know any liberal women who would have sex with conservative men anyway (granted, all the people I know are pretty politically aware; it's not like they'd be likely to become romantically involved with somebody without knowing his political positions first).

A man's position on reproductive choice is a pretty important criteria in a sexual partner, one would think; not that he could stop a woman from exercising her right to reproductive choice regardless of what he thought, but he could certainly be a real drag about it and cause a lot of inconvenience, if he were so inclined.

Hoho, heehee, the ever-popular old "feminists are ugly" routine.
Have you seen me? I'm a rather attractive lady, and I can assure you, I'm merely average looking among my liberal, feminist friends, none of whom are ugly and some of whom are stunning.

Sure, you're not bad. I've seen the pics.

However...I've somehow struggled through this far without knowing you, and as far as I'm concerned you can cross your legs till you turn blue in protest of this coming female rights armagedon your strange lefty brain has imagined. I'll get by. And I'll still be smiling.