A sticker from a Planned Parenthood rally in New York City in 2011. Photo courtesy of Creative Commons

Catholic school may bar girl over Planned Parenthood sticker

GREENWICH, Conn. (AP) — A student at a Roman Catholic school in Connecticut was told to remove a Planned Parenthood sticker from her laptop or she wouldn’t be allowed to re-enroll, her parents said.

The “I stand with Planned Parenthood” sticker was one of several on Sacred Heart Greenwich sophomore Kate Murray’s laptop.

Brian and Tracy Murray told the Greenwich Time on Thursday (Feb. 8) that their daughter removed the pro-abortion rights group’s sticker so she could attend class this week but hasn’t decided if she’ll stay long term.

“It is a small sticker,” Tracy Murray said. “It is not incendiary. It is not vulgar. It is not hurtful.”

Brian Murray said the sticker addresses a political issue about government funding and does not violate church doctrine.

The school’s head, Pamela Hayes, wouldn’t discuss the situation directly but wrote that the school discourages the display of anything “supporting or opposing political candidates, positions or organizations.”

“Open dialogue is alive and well on our campus and that’s why we discourage the displays of slogans and bumper stickers, which in an educational environment can have the unintended consequence of stifling open debate,” Hayes wrote on the school’s website. “We know there are better forums.”

The outgoing president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, tweeted her support for the student, saying, “Keep fighting for what you believe in.”

The all-girls school is not a diocesan school, but the Bridgeport Diocese has said it supports the decision. A statement from the diocese says the school should affirm the church’s opposition to abortion while respecting the right of students to raise questions about moral issues.


  1. I totally support the girl and hope she comes to her senses and drops out of that religious hate organization.

  2. ““Open dialogue is alive and well on our campus and that’s why we discourage the displays of slogans and bumper stickers, which in an educational environment can have the unintended consequence of stifling open debate,””

    How does a sticker on a laptop stifle open debate?

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    I think the lady mis-understands the meaning of “discourage”.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    Banning someone who disagrees with a position is a way of ensuring “open debate”


    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    “the school discourages the display of anything “supporting or opposing political candidates, positions or organizations””

    “A statement from the diocese says the school should affirm the church’s opposition to abortion”

    So do it without display? or it’s OK in this instance because the RCC’s attitude to abortion isn’t a political position. No sir. Not in the US, not in Ireland and not in Westminster.

    Yeah – right.

    And they don’t care enough about their reputations, those of the organisations they represent or the example the pupils will learn from them that they to bother to agree their stories before yakking to the press.

  3. Good idea, except I don’t think she’ll stop supporting Planned Parenthood. Maybe she will though.

  4. You really need a long weekend in Vegas with a cheap-gin-besotted hooker.
    Or perhaps just an enema….

  5. Everyone is born an atheist.
    It’s her parents who gave her religion.
    As with all of us.

  6. Once again, christofascists seek to demand the political correctness they crave and wind up looking like the enemies of freedom which they are. You go, Girl!

  7. actually, “catholic” means worldwide. Were you meaning “Roman Catholic”?

  8. Sorry, I’m not giving you batteries for anything.

  9. Let her wear it but she should expect to be challenged for her support. Pro-aborts don’t like to be challenged with the facts against abortion.

  10. Catholic school may bar girl over Planned Parenthood sticker

    Oh the Horror! God forbid a private organization should have rules and standards by which those who wish to be apart of that organization must abide. Another Holodomor just waiting to happen!!!

    When will Parents be “shamed” for having rules for their children???!!!

  11. He probably just came from one and is feeling guilty. 🙂

  12. They still are here. He’s only saying these things out of love and concern for Adam. Doing his duty to show him the error of his ways. It’s not being insulting. It’s showing Christian love. 🙂

  13. And if the situation were reversed and it’s a private secular school and reactionary student, you would be up in arms.

    Somehow your argument is only used to defend reactionary religious schools. Everyone else is somehow using political correctness to stifle free speech.

  14. Funny, fetus worshipers hate facts.

    They can’t even tell the difference between born and unborn. They have to be told that women are people, not incubating machines. They have to be constantly reminded that they do not have the power to command all women. Facts have never been there friends.

    I am pretty sure “challenging” would be nothing more than harassing and attacking the student. Christians like bullying and coercion over informed choices and rational argument.

  15. Ninnies use terminology like “fetus worshipers”.

    It is used as a substitute for actually thinking.

  16. That appears to be what she is being asked to do: choose.

  17. She would also be in trouble if the sticker said “F-ck the Pope”.

    That more or less comes with going to a Catholic school.

  18. Her parents are a real piece of work.

    They sign her up for a religious education, and then undermine it.

  19. Explain “if the situation were reversed” with an actual example.

  20. We get it all the time. When a conservative rails about “liberal academia stiffling free speech with political correctness”.

    I am 1000% certain you have done that before and will do so in the future. 🙂

    Sometimes is outright comical. Like a writing professor being lambasted for giving style and rhetorical criticism on a paper against those who refuse to stand for the national anthem.


  21. Tone trolling!

    “It is used as a substitute for actually thinking.”

    Irony or just projection? 🙂

  22. I was reading your post.

    As usual it was largely name-calling, plus assertions that your positions are right, and zero facts.

  23. I assume “liberal academia” refers to a public educational setting which is obligated by the First Amendment to respect free speech.

    You apparently missed the fact that is a private school setting, not just a private school setting but a Catholic school.

    In their own school, as with their own hospitals, they can enforce their own beliefs.

  24. nah.. cult recruiters are always active. If they only relied on parents, it would have died out long ago.

  25. You probably know better than I.

    I would make the same comment about any school religious or secular if the equivalent people uttered the same sort of fatuous nonsenses.

  26. I’ve never known the Jews to recruit.
    It’s a birth thing.
    Except maybe SD Jr….

  27. I am sure you mean Magda Davitt.

    She is a certifiable mental case.

    I am sure your family is very very proud.

  28. You can assume anything you want. I will just refer to this when it comes up. 🙂

  29. Poor snowflake likes to make silly attacks but can’t take a little jibe in return. How cute.

  30. I dunno, you seem to take some hits pretty well, snowflake.

    Your posts, however, suck big-time.

  31. The medical facts show that the zygote is a human being. To kill it at any point in its growth is murder.

  32. Ah, the last three words there are an Americanism you may be unfamiliar with. It means the same thing as “Right Ahn!” or “You did good”

  33. First sentence is not a relevant fact since it misses the more important fact that it doesn’t grow in a mason jar, but in a person. The second one is just an opinion and not a well thought out one.

  34. Where a human being is located has nothing to do with it being a human being. To kill it is murder.

  35. It matters when you are trying to dictate the life of the mother its growing in. It means you have no say on the subject. When you get pregnant, you can make your own determinations here.

    Its not murder either. Murder is a legal determination. Stating opinions here, not facts.

    Its telling that fetus worshipers also tend to be rather malicious types against other people as well. Its not about the unborn, its about forcing people to do what they demand.

  36. This may surprise those who know I am an atheist…but…while I disagree with the school’s stance on the issue, I think they are within their rights to dictate such a policy.

    They are a private school. Presumably, the young lady can attend a public school.

  37. Please show the peer reviewed studies that a zygote is a human being.

  38. in most places…a fetus is not defined as a legal person…Only legal persons can be murdered.

  39. or an enema from said hooker? To each their own…

  40. And a mother is a legal person, but not to fetus worshipers.

  41. That is a pretty solid argument for nixing child support.

    If the woman makes her own determinations, it’s her problem.

  42. Only to you Bob.

    But thanks for showing what kind of malicious people are allegedly concerned with “protecting the unborn”.

  43. Just following the logic. I understand you like “heads I win, tails you lose” scenarios for positions you espouse.

    If it’s all a woman’s choice, it would appear to be her problem, not his.

    As it stands you’re making an argument it is all about the woman until it comes time to pay.

    This argument is already being made in courts. It is just a matter of time before some judge concludes you have to fund your own choices.

  44. Good point. In some states if you murder a pregnant woman it’s considered a double homicide. That means the state considers the unborn baby a “legal person”.

  45. Nonsense. No pregnant woman should have the right to murder her baby that is growing in her.

  46. Yeah there is a legally murky area where SCOTUS says one thing and some states say another. There has never been a real attempt to reconcile (probably for political reasons??)

  47. “Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition.

    “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.” Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, Cell Tissue Research.

  48. Your opinion of what you think should happen is duly noted. Its utterly silly and treats women as if they are yours to command, but it is your view. Not a fact, merely a whiny opinion of how you want people to act.

  49. Weirdly..I could only find Moore’s alleged quotes in religious and pro-life sites. I can;t find an original source that states this is in his book. Any idea why?

    As for Signorelli…notice it does not say a zygote is a human being. It says it goes on to produce an individual (what?)

  50. Then you stink at following logical arguments.

    It is all a woman’s choice.

    “As it stands you’re making an argument it is all about the woman until it comes time to pay.”

    Its all about the woman, period. Nothing else.

    You make a fictional argument. Abortions are not paid for by tax dollars or by anyone else except on a voluntary basis

    “This argument is already being made in courts.”

    Another stupid argument. You are referring to health insurance. Insurance is not something given to employees out of largesse. It is a form of compensation for work. An employer has as much say as to how it is used as they do to how a paycheck is spent. None whatsoever.

    Your entire argument premises on the notion that people can be treated as your personal property. Malice towards people in general. As I said before, its not about protecting anyone. Its about telling them what to do.

  51. Not really. At no point do any states use homicide laws against a mother for an abortion. In all of those laws, the crime is primarily against the mother. Death of a fetus in of itself is not considered murder, but usually a separate charge of “an abortional act” against the mother. A form of battery.

  52. Do you have The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition?

    If the zygote in a woman’s womb is not the beginning of a human being then what is the nature of it?

    Have you ever heard of a pregnant woman giving birth to a duck or something non-human?

    here is another quote from medical science:
    “The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
    [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

  53. Let God remove the sticker if it needs to be removed. Or don’t Catholics believe in God and his omnipotence?

  54. Ok, it is all a woman’s choice.

    It’s all about the woman, period. Nothing else.

    “Okay, so I was happy to be a sperm donor. Raise the kid or kill’em, but in either case it is your problem.”

    Try to wedge suing for child support in there – it does not seem to fit.

  55. “Ok, it is all a woman’s choice.”

    Should have stopped there. Then you would have understanding of the issue in an honest manner.

    ““Okay, so I was happy to be a sperm donor. Raise the kid or kill’em, but in either case it is your problem.””

    Aww poor guy wants to pretend he has a say in the matter despite bearing 0% of any of the physical burdens of a pregnancy. That is so adorable. 🙂

    “Try to wedge suing for child support in there – it does not seem to fit.”

    Nope. I leave that nonsense entirely to your fevered mind. You are making associations which do not make a bit of sense.

  56. That represents a win for my side, and grudging recognition on your part that you cut the ground out from under nailing men to the floor for child support.

  57. That was infantile. Declare victory by incoherence. You made a stupid argument and I called it out for its irrelevance.

    I can’t even pretend you are capable of an honest and mature discussion. That was so masturbatory that I bet you typed that one handed.

  58. It was your incoherence, btw.

    You’re stymied trying to sort out how to lay a claim to some poor schlep’s dough while giving the woman all the control over the choices.

  59. You made a stupid argument that I wasn’t even going to touch.

    “In your fevered mind, Bob” being the reaction.

    You want to call that a victory? Go ahead. You have slayed me with your irrational incoherent irrelevant ramble. ARGHHHH!!!!

    You should clean yourself up after that.

    What I find really funny is how any pretension of a moral position or stance melts away pretty quickly for an opportunity to show us all just how malicious and infantile you and other fetus worshipers really are. It’s pretty clear your position on pretty much anything is to demand what others must do for you.

    You can run along. Adults are talking now.

  60. Sammy Davis Jr. converted to Judaism after the car accident that led to the loss of his eye. Supposedly the one night he forgot to wear the mezuzah [Jewish amulet containing Torah verses] given to him by his friend Eddie Cantor was the night the accident occurred. Although conversations with Cantor about the similarities of the Jewish and African-American experiences spurred his interest, Davis’s path toward Judaism was apparently his own.

  61. While the school is within its rights here as a private religious school, I seriously doubt they would have had the same reaction to an American Life League sticker.

  62. Now you just skip the assertions of being correct and call other folks’ arguments “stupid”?

    Blah, blah, “really funny”, blah blah, “any pretension of a moral position”, blah, blah.


    You wouldn’t touch it BECAUSE YOU CAN’T.

    People cannot be held responsible for things over which they have no control.

    With ALL the power comes ALL the responsibility.

  63. I am still waiting for you to make a factual assertion or a coherent response to my argument. Better yet try elaborating on that stillbirth of an argument concerning child support. I love to see how crazy people think.

    Sorry Sparky but women bear 100% of the physical burden of a pregnancy. It’s in their bodies. You want possession of a fetus, find a way to take it from her. Guys don’t get to purchase a share of a woman’s body. Whatever you wanted to say about child support was stupid beyond words.

  64. You seem to be missing 100% of his point.

    His comments have zero to do with wanting possession of a fetus.

    As a result you comments are firing on targets of your own imagination.

  65. Bob, you have no point to make.

    You are saying that a woman’s body can be essentially bought by others. That somehow you or others have a say in the decisions a woman makes concerning what goes on in her body. As usual you show a contempt for people in an obvious manner with such remarks.

    It’s telling how much malice and disregard for the lives of others seen by the anti abortion crowd spills out in other subjects as well.

  66. The proposition dealt not with guys purchasing a share of a woman’s body.

    It dealt with whether a guy could be compelled to pay for her choices.

    I can see why you’re evading it.

  67. Of course it is. Your claim is he might pay child support, therefore he has a say in what she does with her body. You are saying he is purchasing an ownership interest in her womb and fetus.

    You just haven’t thought your own argument through clearly enough. There is nothing being evaded here. Your point just lacked coherence or sense.

  68. Also, his point, which you keep evading, is that if only the woman has a say, only the woman has a responsibility.

    You have not even acknowledged the question that led to.

  69. Are you sure you are not Bob? You are answering for him and taking on his incoherent line of argument.

    It was a rather silly argument to make for you guys because it is entirely in agreement with me.

    During the pregnancy, she HAS the sole responsibility and sole burdens. No matter what the father does, it still doesn’t involve his body.

    After birth, he has the responsibility as a parent. He can actually share the physical burdens of parenting as well. But until then, he is more or less a bystander.

    So you have refuted your own position by acknowledging that outsiders like yourself have no say in the decisions and responsibilities of a pregnancy, but the woman does.

    OK. Thanks for playing. As a consolation prize you get a years supply of Turtle Wax!

  70. I made no such claim.

    I simply asked you to explain the basis for assessing the provider of sperm for child support when the woman makes all the choices.

    Either provide that explanation, or cease the tapdance pretending not to understand the question.

  71. You apparently do not want to answer the question.

    And anyone can see why.

    Why he does have “responsibility as a parent”?

    If he took a hike, or it was a wild fling, it was not his choice to calve.

    So, again, why does he owe her money?


  72. You are claiming he has a choice in the pregnancy by dint of child support. As if that is paying for control over her body. My precise interpretation of your argument. You were much better at articulating it as Jose.

    The man has no role in the physical burdens of a pregnancy. He is a bystander. Its not his body which bears any of the role in the pregnancy. Child support requires a child. A born being in existence. So until that child exists after birth, he has no choice in the matter.

    What you are really saying here is that a woman has all the control and choices here because he actually has no role in the pregnancy. You are supporting my view with that argument. You shot yourself in the foot.

  73. I am claiming he has NO CHOICE.

    That pretty much ends your ability to play that game, doesn’t it?

  74. I answered it before. See my prior comments about physical burdens before and after a pregnancy.

  75. “I am claiming he has NO CHOICE.”

    Which means you support my view. That the woman has the sole authority as to what goes on in her body. You have refuted the anti-abortion view entirely.

    “That pretty much ends your ability to play that game, doesn’t it?”

    Of course. You just capitulated to my view. Her body, her rules.

  76. NO, NO, and NO.

    The question is if he NO CHOICE, and he has zero contact with her and the child after impregnating her, what legal basis is there for compelling him to pay child support?

    Just to make sure you have it this time:


  77. You said it. The man has no say in a pregnancy. It is all the woman’s choice. Your words. You conceded the point. You lose!!!!!!!!!

    I explained already that child support presupposes a child in existence. So until the pregnancy is over through the guy isn’t actually doing anything or has a responsibility.

    What is the legal basis for child support is that once a child is born he can take custody and/or possession of it by right as the father. So he can be made responsible for it. But that all requires a child to be born first. At pregnancy the guy essentially does nothing and has no burdens of his own there.

  78. You are purposely evading the question.

    Children are not owned, so he can’t “take possession of it”.

    He had nothing to say about it being born, that was the woman’s choice.

    He has no interest at all in the outcome.

    Under the law he can be compelled to pay support in any case.


    I know, you’ll evade that again, I just want others to see you evading it.

  79. No asked and answered. Just not to the satisfaction of your bruised ego.

    Way to miss the point intentionally. I shouldn’t have to explain to you that a man can’t even exercise parental rights or obligations until a child actually is born. But you are so dimwitted and dishonest that I am forced to here.

    During the pregnancy the only person with any burdens or potential responsibility is the mother. So she is the only one with any rights in the matter.

    If you can claim the rights, you get the responsibility. A man can claim his own parental rights and custody after birth. He can’t do squat during a pregnancy.

    BTW mor0n, there is no way to force a man to pay for support of a woman (and fetus) during the pregnancy. Your whole point is mistaking what child support actually is.

  80. You haven’t even acknowledged the question.

    This father, as I have outlined 14 times, doesn’t want parental rights and custody.

    He also does not want to support the child, which is a result of the mother’s choice alone.

    You’re evading because if you’re consistent in your position, he should not have to pay anything at all since he claims no rights.

    Answering it will make it clear you’re only interested in ONE set of rights.

  81. Nope, asked and answered. Now I have to dumb it down for you

    No child yet = no child support yet = no rights or responsibility for the father yet.

    The father has no role or burdens during a pregnancy nor rights he can assert of his own. He has no responsibility either.

    It’s only after birth he can assert parental rights of his own. So only after birth he has any obligations of his own.

    Your argument was silly. You lost.

  82. I can dumb down even further so that even YOU can understand the question.

    Since the father has no choice in whether or not there is a child, and is not interested in asserting parental rights, there is no logical basis for him to pay child support.


    Suck on that lemon for awhile.

  83. I can dumb down even further so that even YOU can understand the question.

    Since the father has no choice in whether or not there is a child, and is not interested in asserting parental rights, there is no logical basis for him to pay child support.


    Yet universally in the USA that is done every day.

    What is the logical basis for that?

    Suck on that lemon for awhile.

  84. The problem is you don’t understand your own argument. I answered it sufficiently for honest and intelligent people to understand. You are clearly neither.

    “Since the father has no choice in whether or not there is a child, and is not interested in asserting parental rights, there is no logical basis for him to pay child support”

    Of course there is. Already answered several times. Because he can assert parental rights and custody after birth, when they exist, even if he wasn’t initially interested during the pregnancy, just for being the father. He can’t do anything prior to birth. Child support can’t exist until a child exists.

    So your argument had no bearing during a pregnancy. A father’s rights or obligations don’t exist at pregnancy. They exist at birth. Child support doesn’t exist at pregnancy. It exists at birth.

    Only a dishonest fetus worshiper has problems distinguishing between pregnancy and birth. This is only a question for you. Not for anyone who is honest and deals with the facts of the matter.

    You are done. You got nothing. You lost here. Find somewhere else to save your bruised ego.

  85. What remarkable evasions.

    We’re not talking about prior to birth.

    We are not talking about during a pregnancy.

    Only a bloodthirsty search and destroy fetus monster would try this type of evasion.

    I’ll answer it for you.

    Because you are logically consistent, mother makes all the decisions and has all the rights, a live birth can only occur because she chooses it.

    Therefore, being logically consistent, if the biological father has no interest in asserting any rights, the courts have no business assessing such a father child support.

    And that is already being asserted in courts, the flip side of your argument.

  86. Evasion is all you. I could not be any clearer here. you could not be a bigger waste of time.

    How can a father have any rights or obligations here until a child exists?

    If you can’t figure that out, you can’t understand my response. If you can’t understand my response, it is your problem not mine. I could not make it any plainer to you.

  87. I have no idea since the only one who keeps bringing up “father … rights or obligations … (BEFORE a) …. child exists” is YOU.

    The topic was CHILD SUPPORT.

    My point was that if the biological father had no say in the child’s existence, since the mother has all the control, the father should not be liable for supporting the child AFTER it is born.

    And your arguments support that, so since you’re silent on the topic, we can assume you agree.

  88. You are thick. So what does a father do for during a pregnancy? Pretty much nothing.

    A father has no rights to exert until a child exists so he has no obligations either. He can’t even pay child support until a child exists.

    An honest and rational person would have understood that. Days ago. You aren’t either. You lost your own argument and it has bruised your ego. Tough luck snowflake.

    Get back to me when you figure out how to take custody of a fetus.

  89. You are so thick.

    The topic is CHILD SUPPORT.

    CHILD SUPPORT is court ordered AFTER a child is born. CHILD SUPPORT

    So what a father does during a pregnancy is IRRELEVANT. You have been told that in capital letters over SIX DIFFERENT TIMES. CHILD SUPPORT

    Similarly asserting paternal rights BEFORE a birth is IRRELEVANT. You have been told that in capital letters over SIX DIFFERENT TIMES. CHILD SUPPORT

    Since the question posed had to deal with a father who is not interested in rights, saying “A father has no rights to exert until a child exists so he has no obligations either.” is IRRELEVANT.


    An honest and rational person would have understood that. Days ago. You aren’t either.


    Since the father had no choice in the child(ren) born, no interest in it(them), and is asserting no rights of any kind, he should not have to pay CHILD SUPPORT. It was all the mother’s choice.


    You lost your own argument with your own logic and are working hard to avoid dealing with it.

  90. Actually the subject was abortion rights. There is no child support without a child.

  91. Then you have conceded my point. You have lost.

    You are the only one bringing up a father at all. I didn’t start that discussion. He’s an irrelevance to abortion rights. You have capitulated on my point that any discussion of child support is an irrelevance to abortion rights because there is no child to support.

    You have given up your own argument. You lose.

  92. Which means it’s an irrelevance during a pregnancy. When no child exists yet. You lose.





  95. Actually the subject was a private school’s right to discipline.

    You then discussed abortion rights and asserted only the mother has rights.

    I noted that there is no child support without a child, and if as you say only the mother can make that choice, then supporting the child is her problem if the father leaves forever after coitus or the deposit at the sperm bank.

    Your logic supports that completely.

    I WIN.

Leave a Comment