52°Overcast

Anti-Abortion Protest Outside W-L High School

by ARLnow.com — October 5, 2012 at 2:45 pm 7,448 203 Comments

An anti-abortion protest was held outside Washington-Lee High School this morning.

A group of anti-abortion protesters held signs and displayed graphic photos of aborted fetuses. This afternoon, W-L principal Gregg Robertson sent an email to parents filling in some details about the protests.

Dear parents/guardians,

This morning, members of the Human Life Alliance appeared on the public sidewalk in front of Washington-Lee. They had signs and attempted to distribute flyers and to engage students in discussion. No advance notice was given to Arlington Public Schools or to Washington-Lee and this was not an approved event. W-L administrators and the Arlington police asked the group to move across the street, but the individuals refused, noting that they were in the public domain on a public sidewalk. While that is true, it is unfortunate that they chose that type of confrontation method to express their views to children who are mostly ages 14-17. Please be assured it is not anything we would ever approve or encourage, and we regret that the events took place this morning.

Sincerely,

Gregg Robertson
Principal

  • drax

    Wonder WTF made them this place for a protest.

    • right wing flight

      This is where they are passing out the Day After Pill.

      • drax

        It’s “morning after pill” and no, they aren’t passing it out there.

        Go do your homework, son.

  • novasteve

    How dare they exercise their 1st amendment rights! HOW DARE THEY!!!!

    • internet tourettes

      I know that this is a foreign concept for you but every right comes with a responsibility.

      • novasteve

        Only liberals making excuses for other people’s behavior say that rights come with responsibilities. NO THEY DO NOT. I have a right to offend anyone and everyone, and I have no responsibility to take into account y ou being offended, like how shameless liberals were doing after the Mohamed film. He has a right to make the film, PERIOD. People don’t have a right to go on killing sprees and storm embassies of they are offended. STOP MAKING EXECUSES LIBS.

        • LIB

          1) we don’t make excuses
          2) you have a right to be obnoxious and you exercize that freely and often – and we have the right to consider you a jackass
          3) where are you on flag burning?

          • novasteve

            Flag burning is protected free speech. Let me ask you a question, if people started attacking and killing flag burners, would you start saying “free speech” comes with responsibilities like the “fighting words” exception for the first amendment that basically plays on stereotypes and prejudiced views of certain groups who the judiciary things are less likely to control themselves?

          • It’s Me

            @Lib – re: your #2 point to NovaSteve…+100

          • MC 703

            Yeah get those durn liberals. Run em outta town!

        • Karen

          I think you misunderstand what rights are–and other peoples rights to the same rights. If you truly believe rights exist outside responsibility, then go ahead and try to yell bomb in an airport. See how they respect your ‘rights’ there.

          • novasteve

            I don’t have a right to yell bomb unless there’s a bomb actually there. Give me an example of a right I have that I should exercise responsibility for? Like if I go voting, I should be responsible for it and shouldn’t be allowed to vote for who I want? If I want to write in Remy Munasfy I shouldn’t be allowed to?

            What do you mean rights come with responsibilities other than excusing someone else’s poor behavior? Because honestly, I only hear this from liberals when muslims go on rampages after getting offended. If christians started going on rampages when they got offended, would you start saying free speech comes with responsibility?

            Oh guys, if you followed international news, you’d know that an “abortion ship” sailed to Morocco yesterday, got rejected by the government, and the news got out, so muslims are now awaare that westernerns sent a ship to morocco so women could get abortions, meaning muslim fetuses could get aborted. HOw do you think that’s going to make muslims feel?

          • drax

            Karen,

            That doesn’t mean rights have responsibilities, it means you don’t have a right to yell bomb in an airport.

            I agree with steve – rights are not conditioned on responsibility. This isn’t about that, it’s about steve completely misunderstanding that the principal wasn’t questioning anyone’s rights.

        • internet tourettes

          Wow, were you feberized when you were a baby?

          • Malaka

            He still is. Cig is the new pacifier.

        • internet tourettes
        • LPS4DL

          I can’t believe you’re still here and leaving comments. You will be much happier in Southwestern Virginia SWVASteve.

    • Meg

      A student told me that the protestors were handing out fliers with ghastly pictures of miscarriages and stillbirths, approaching students and very aggressively asking questions, and displaying oversized, bloody pictures of miscarriages and stillbirths. There were students who were upset and complained to administration and parents. Parents were calling the principal under the impression that the school had approved the protest and/or that it was taking place on school property. Before those rumors ran amuck, the principal had to let everyone know that it was not school approved and not on school property, and that’s what he did.

      • CA

        Would it be a miscarriage and still birth picture, or an abortion picture?

    • Karen

      We are talking about confronting high school children here. You don’t see anything wrong with this?

      • Westover

        I’ll wait for John Fontain to respond to your question. He’s the local expert on what those precious snowflakes can and can not endure.

        • karenaspires

          It’s not about their ability to “handle” things. It’s absolutely tasteless and a little scary. I’d want them to stay away from my kids. If I had known, I’d have been right out there protesting the protesters. But I guess that’s exactly what these spineless “demonstrators” wanted to avoid. Another nut job as loud as them protesting them.

          • dk (not DK)

            It’s not the topic that disturbs me. My teen and I have discussed abortion many times. I am a supporter of abortion rights; he knows this and knows why I feel this way. But I have also made clear to him that there are reasoned arguments against abortion. We have discussed how someone who believes that life begins at conception might feel strongly that abortion is murder and therefore tragic and unacceptable. If I go home this evening and find that he has a flyer depicting a picture of a miscarried, stillborn, or aborted fetus, I will discuss it with him and talk about how the picture is disturbing (if it is) and why. That’s exactly what happened when we were on the Mall one day and passed a demonstration there.

            The difference is that when he or we are out in public places, he can look or not look, approach or not approach, leave if he feels uncomfortable or frightened by anyone’s behavior. When he is required to be at school, and must therefore pass by/through a group of people who are screaming in his face and waving bloody pictures, he is deprived of his own right to walk to school without being frightened or accosted or berated or exposed to verbal abuse.

          • George

            Protesting? This was a statutory crime of obscenity. If I was a parent to one of the children these lunatic predators attempted to traumatize, the consequences would be more than verbal.

      • novasteve

        Yet it’s okay for highschool “children” to have sex, have abortions, drive, and in some instances even vote? But when confronted with abortion, they are suddenly childrenw ho need to be protected, eh?

        • It’s Me

          Nova Steve – sounds like you are against teens having pre-marital sex, so: What if pro-premarital sex advocates showed up at your kid’s schools and accosted them with HUGE porno pics of kids having sex and clearly having fun to show the teen virgins what they are missing out on – would you have a problem with that free speech? I suspect you are one of those wingnuts with the “God Hates Fags” signs protesting grieving families outside of Arlington. They may have that right, but it is shameful and so are you and those accosting kids with graphic photos to use the kids in such ghoulish political theater.

      • Undereducated

        Almost 20 percent of abortions are performed on girls under 20 years old. So, I see nothing wrong with a pro-life campaign aimed at teens. What I see as wrong is women using abortion as birth control.

        • drax

          Can I come over to your girl’s school and walk around with photos of people having sex…with condoms? It prevents abortions.

    • Mick

      Well parents are a touchy lot. They don’t take too kindly to strangers advocating to their children.

      Perhaps the protestors could have shuffled down to Clarendon and preached to the hipsters and businessmen rather than school children.

      • novasteve

        Children are susceptible, hence that’s why libs use the public schools to indoctrinate kids.

        • Really?

          Well said Steve.

          But again, while you’re mind is generally in the right place, there’s one very glaring and important item on which I need to clarify for you.

          Rights do in fact always come with responsibilities. That is a very fundamental principle of morality, I’m sure it was just a momentary oversight on your part, but it’s one of the most common errors that liberals make – denying responsibility. Every true right comes with an implied duty.

          For example, the right to freedom comes with the implied duty to use it judiciously, and to live a just life. God has created nature a certain way, endowing men for example with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights come with the duty to treat others fairly and according to the manifest Truths revealed to us by Him. Another example is the right to knowledge and truth (well, technically those are one and the same thing). That right comes with consequent duties to share that knowledge with the uneducated and less fortunate. High school children being force-fed liberal propaganda, for example.

          The right to life for example, comes with the duty to protect the lives of the innocent. Even babies. Even (gasp) if that means through education. Even through education of children (heaven forbid they receive anything outside of controlled, immoral propaganda). Yes, the gross bigotry and grace-less souls of shallow liberals somehow obfuscates their minds into using semantics to justify the death of some babies. But those children die not by their own choice but the selfish, God-less choice of someone else.

          And as you recognize Steve, those someone elses then go on to feign shock, when pictures are produced and presented of the actions they condone, and promote. The killing of innocent children is promoted, but let’s condemn the folks producing the evidence. Absolutely shameful.

          • Mick

            A bit too much of the Roman Natural law slippery slope

    • Jotorious

      For being a lawyer, you are certainly ignorant of the law. If these students aren’t adults, they are in the custody of the school, according to the concept of In Loco Parentis, and as such the school gets to determine, as a parent would, what the students are exposed to. How dare custodians make choices for those in their custody. The Horror.

  • Brian

    Why at the high school?

    • novasteve

      Because that’s where a lot of indoctrination occurs.

      • internet tourettes

        Oh, do you mean education?

        • novasteve

          Yes, but also indoctrination.

          • Louise

            Can you give an example of how children are being indoctrinated at Washington Lee High School, novasteve?

          • It’s Me

            NovaSteve – it’s hard for me to read your comments as the sun is in my eyes bouncing off of your tinfoil hat…

        • ArlWhat

          You’ll have to excuse NS; his projection frequently gets the best of him.

          • Really?

            What are you even talking about? Crawl back under your rock. The warm fuzzies you give yourself in the presence of a thousand other maggots spewing the same irrational nonsense as you, are – well, warm fuzzies. And on this planet at least, warm fuzzies are still a couple evolutions away from a rational argument.

            Now, I realize you probably meant to say ‘blah blah blah it’s all true because a lot of other troglodytes agree with me and we all have a nice set of afternoon china and smile at stupid things and frown condescendingly upon those who disagree with mainstream neanderthals and we don’t like to see pictures of the atrocities we condone.

            Well then, to that I say well spoken. Slap yourself on the back.

            Then slap yourself in the face, pour some cold water over your head and wake up. That blinding light you mock is Truth, which Steve is so nobly attempting to share with you, in his own humble way.

            But as in the Old Testament, you burn the prophets God sends to show you the way.

          • jackson

            Steve mocks radical Muslims protesting a movie and you bring up the Old Testament like it’s evidence and completely rational.

          • ArlWhat

            You’ll have to excuse Really?; his projection frequently gets the best of him.

          • Really?

            Uh, yes, I do. Because hypocrites like you, making your faith based decisions every moment, refuse to acknowledge the fundamental acts of faith at the basis of everything we do, and insist on appealing to the ‘the science of reason’ as though it stands by itself apart from faith.

            Very well then, I’ve referred you to some completely verifiable passages of one of our most time tested history books, namely the Old Testament. Perhaps you mean to say the Jews of the Old Testament did NOT in fact persecute their prophets? Do you deny the existence of such historical figures as Jeremiah, or that he was persecuted, beaten and imprisoned for his prophecies? Isaiah, Zachariah, John the Baptist and more — all are historical characters that can be independently verified from external resources, archaelogical finds, contemporary writings or other sources.

            But for you, the appeal to ‘reason’ lasts only until the weight of it turns against your arguments. At which point you make another false act of faith in your own self-righteousness, attempting to perpetuate your false rationality on the basis of some new false premise.

            In the end your only weapon is mockery.

      • karenaspires

        Wrong, because that is the only venue that doesn’t know enough to challenge them. These nut jobs get booed everywhere they go. I wish they would try that on adults.

    • dk (not DK)

      This isn’t the first time that group has held a demonstration at W-L.

      • Really?

        Bravo for them.

    • right wing flight

      Isn’t that where they are giving the Day After Pill to students?

  • RWarren

    Sounds like a good teachable moment about the Constitution. Instead you get regrets and platitudes by the school’s leader.

    • drax

      Sounds like that was a teachable moment.

    • b-money

      The Principal had to cover their ass and make it clear it wasn’t approved by the school.

      I thought the letter was well-written: “We don’t particularly want them here, but we’re powerless to stop them”.

      • novasteve

        Why would the principal have to do anything? They ahve a constitutional right to do that. What “cover their ass” did the school have to do when someone else exercises their rights?

        • RWarren

          Yeah, that attitude implies that they are susceptible or somehow liable for letting this happen. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the parents freak out on the school about this, they’re the idiots. It’s not the school’s fault.

          • emanon

            Buy by writing a letter, everyone has the same knowledge and the event does not become the topic of speculation and rumors. Now we all know, and the principal’s office has eliminated 500 phone calls on Monday.

    • Raul202

      Regrets because it was an unapproved inappropriate way to approach children with a delicate topic.

      • Really?

        Unapproved? By whom was it supposed to be approved – someone who disagrees with the truths they are presenting? Someone who wished to remain insulated from the atrocities they condone?

  • Good Grief

    I’m all about freedom of speech and fighting to one’s beliefs.. but this is pretty distasteful :-/

    • novasteve

      Distasteful? Do you think the first amendment exists to protect only popular or tasteful speech?

      • Mr X

        The speech was allowed — nobody chased the protesters away, threatened them or tried to forcefully make them stop. So the protection by the first amendment worked well.

        Still, distasteful.

        • you dont understand

          You called it distasteful

          If a wingnut says something vile, thats freedom of speech.

          If someone calls it vile, thats not freedom of speech (as one might thing) its a DENIAL of freedom of speech.

          One more thing wingnuts have in common with their enemies, muslim extremists.

          • Novanglus

            Umm, no. You don’t understand

            Calling something “vile” or “distasteful” is also exercising freedom of speech.

            Freedom of speech stops when people are put in jail, fined, or denied government services because of what they say or believe. That didn’t happen today. That didn’t happen to the guy who made the Anti-Islam film (he was jailed for other reasons). That didn’t happen to the people who ran “Oppose Jihad” ads in SF and NY calling Palestinians savages. That didn’t happen to the CEO of Chick-Fil-A. Freedom of speech is alive in well in out beloved country.

      • Good Grief

        I think distasteful sums it up, I didn’t say the word illegal did I? Nothing wrong with practicing civility or being annoyed when others don’t.

    • Really?

      Distasteful? Do you think a baby in the womb might find it distasteful to have a saline syringe poked into their skull to decimate their brain?

      Oh sorry. Did I just say something uncomfortable?

      • Yes, Really

        Your “baby in the womb” would find it no more distasteful than the skin cells you kill every time you scratch an itch.

        • Ricardo

          Neither would someone who was fast asleep. So what?

          • Really?

            Ignorance.

            If you have the intellectual honesty to stand by your statement, watch the film “The Silent Scream”, then come back and make that claim. You can find it here: http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm

            Doesn’t look like an itch getting scratched to me.

            Read the confession of Dr Bernard Nathanson. After performing 75,000 abortions, I’d say he knows something about them, probably a little more than you. http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

            When he talks about the barbarity of abortion, it doesn’t sound like he’s referring to a skin irritation.

  • Louise

    Nicely written. Parents need to be reassured that this was not preventable.

  • Skeptical

    Hmm, I wonder if that “teachable moment about the Constitution” argument would come out so glibly if the pickets were White Power crusaders pushing *their* agenda. Or Fred Phelps’ people waving his “God Hates Fags” signs.

    Kids have to attend school, by law. It’s not too much to ask a bunch of religious fanatics to take their propaganda out of their direct path nor is it inappropriate for the principal to express regret that it happened.

    • novasteve

      So people who oppose abortion as a form of birth control are religious fanatics? Or those who support it abortion fanatics?

      • Mr X

        Most of them are, yes.

        • sigh

          some people who want abortion to be illegal have serious arguments. Idiots like this who hold demos at high schools (and their apologists who cannot see what might be wrong with that) do their cause little good, IMO.

        • Really?

          Interesting response. Seems a little vague and misleading though, so let’s try some exercises.

          Is it wrong to be fanatical? I mean, as an absolute rule?

          Let’s try some examples.
          Is it fair to say that George Washington was a bit fanatical about opposing British oppression?

          Is it fair to say Ghandi was fanatical in his hunger strike?

          Wasn’t the USA a bit fanatical in crushing the Nazi regime? Would you say the German citizens were appropriately non-fanatical in their opposition to Hitler?

          Were the Spartans a bit fanatical at the Battle of Thermopylae? Or at least, somewhat less courteous than they could have been?

          Some years ago, slavery was legal in this country, but some people were opposed to it. Would you say they were a bit fanatical?

          Let’s start there.

      • Mary-Austin

        Yes. Also, nobody supports abortion as a form of birth control.
        Many who oppose it, such as yourself, are completely rabid.

        • novasteve

          So why are teh vast vast majority of abortions not in the case of rape, to save the life of the mother or due to birth defects?

          • Mary-Austin

            Any variety of issues. A woman has a right to with her body what she chooses.
            The constitution seems to be a completely foreign concept to you.

          • novasteve

            Absolutely untrue. A man nor a woman has a right to sell their organs, yet it’s part of their body. So how does “a woman ha[ve] a right to with her body what she choose”??? Point out in the constitution where it mentions abortion, or even privacy. Roe v Wade is a horrible decision that even Justice Ginsberg agrees was poorly decided. Rights out of thin air.

          • Ballstonian

            Which article/amendment of our Constitution is it again that grants the right to have an abortion?

          • The Bible

            What gives the government the power to tell its citizens when they must have children?

          • novasteve

            Duh, the penumbras in the constitution. I bet the justices in the majority opinion laughed at the BSing they did when they wrote Roe. EVEN LIBERAL GINSBERG admits it was wrongly decided. She wanted to make an equal protection argument, but if that were the case, then men would haev a say in abortion too.

          • Really?

            A woman has a right to her body…what does that have to do with abortion? We’re talking about the baby.

            Oh wait – I think I understand now. Let’s break it down into a moral syllogism.

            A woman has a right to her own body.
            The baby is dependent on her body.
            Everyone has a right to the life or death of those who are dependent on them.
            Therefore a woman has the right to kill her baby.

            I think I understand you now. It’s a pretty sick and black-hearted argument, but I see what you are attempting to say.

          • novasteve

            So if a woman has a right to her body, and assume for a moment the baby is part of her body, which it isnt’ and assume away the argument that if it’s dependent upon her body that’s the same and thus womens hould be able to kill their children until their old enough to feed themselves…. why aren’t women allowed to sell the organs, why can’t they engage in prostitution, take illegal drugs? Isn’t it their body? So you only care about “her body” when it comes to killing her own child, but otherwise you don’t care about all these restrictions upon what she can do with “her body”??

          • drax

            Here’s where I turn it around on you again, steve:

            So if a woman does NOT have a right to her own body, can the government force her to do anything it wants with her body? To breed, or work on a sex farm, or take drugs without her consent?

        • wwjs

          That’s simply not true, Mary-Austin.

          Unless it’s done to protect the life or health of the mother, abortion is about preventing the birth of the baby — it’s birth control, by definition. There are valid reasons to do that, including rape and incest, and I don’t think the government should be judging which reasons are valid and which aren’t.

          But we shouldn’t delude ourselves: supporting abortion rights means we are supporting it as a form of birth control.

          • novasteve

            Also, the vast vast majority of abortions are not for rape, to save the life of the mother or incest. We’re talking well over 90% of abortions are as a form of birth control.

          • drax

            So what? Is it okay to murder a baby, in your mind, if its among the 10% who are due to rape or incest?

      • wwjs

        Not all people who oppose abortion are fanatics, Steve. But the tactics used today at W-L were certainly fanatical.

        Contrast today’s rally with people who stand outside clinics with signs saying “Jesus loves you and your baby. How can we help you both?”

        Or with churches who put up signs saying “Pregnant? We can help!”

        Which would work better? Which would Jesus do?

        • Mary-Austin

          They would probably be calling him a socialist if he were around today.

          • Really?

            Hmm, socialist? No, don’t think so.

            I can’t recall any incidents in the New Testament of Christ stealing the property of others and appropriating it for his own selfish purposes under the phony pretext of doing it for the poor.

          • Yes, Really

            No, but he tells you to redistribute your wealth. You know, give to the poor and all that. Are you living a Spartan existence so you can help your fellow man?

          • Really?

            Again, my point -
            Christ does not steal the property of others and appropriate it for his own selfish gain. Thus He is not a socialist.

            The reference to Matthew 19 is perfect for this illustration, thank you for raising that. Where in this passage does it involve Christ forcibly dispossessing the man of his accoutrements?

            Do not confuse the voluntary good will advocated by Christ with blind license to steal, aka socialism. That’s just silly and an insult to even a second grader’s logic.

            You mock the passages you quote, and insist upon being some sort of ‘policeman of the souls of others’, as though they can attain heaven by having their property stolen. You maintain a hypocrisy: that forced dispossession of wealth is the right of the government, justified by reference to a religion it mocks.

            Christ’s instruction has one goal: That the rich man find it in his soul to give up his wealth by an act of his own will, and by such an act merit graces by which to attain heaven. Your silly attempt to use this passage as a justification for socialism rests upon the opposite message: that man’s free will doesn’t matter and instead he can be equally saved through the evil act (theft) by someone else of his property.

          • drax

            18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

            19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.

            20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’ ”

            21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.

            22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

            23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. 24 Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

            26 Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”

            27 Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”

            Luke 18:18-27 (NIV)

          • dk (not DK)

            Busted!

          • Really?

            Again, my point -
            Christ does not steal the property of others and appropriate it for his own selfish gain. Thus He is not a socialist.

            The reference to Matthew 19 is perfect for this illustration, thank you for raising that. Where in this passage does it involve Christ forcibly dispossessing the man of his accoutrements?

            Do not confuse the voluntary good will advocated by Christ with blind license to steal, aka socialism. That’s just silly and an insult to even a second grader’s logic.

            You mock the passages you quote, and insist upon being some sort of ‘policeman of the souls of others’, as though they can attain heaven by having their property stolen. You maintain a hypocrisy: that forced dispossession of wealth is the right of the government, justified by reference to a religion it mocks.

            Christ’s instruction has one goal: That the rich man find it in his soul to give up his wealth by an act of his own will, and by such an act merit graces by which to attain heaven. Your silly attempt to use this passage as a justification for socialism rests upon the opposite message: that man’s free will doesn’t matter and instead he can be equally saved through the evil act (theft) by someone else of his property.

    • drax

      Yes, those would make even better teachable moments.

      This was already a teachable moment. This email went to parents, not students. The students are certainly learning as we speak that even distasteful or controversial speech is protected in America.

      • novasteve

        Why would parents who went through the public school systems need such an email? Shouldn’t they know about free speech?

        • Meg

          Many of the parents thought that the protest was on school property and/or endorsed by the school, and many of the kids felt harassed by the protesters, so they called to complain.

        • Karen

          Because it stands to reason by any reasonable mind that if children are abruptly being harassed by demonstrators, that parents should get a heads up. You know–just in case parents haven’t had “the talk” with their kids yet. It’s called being mindful. You should really consider it.

          • Tabby_TwoTone

            Not only that, but the fact that their children were being harassed by crazy people. As a young adult just going about my business walking to work, I had these people in my face, BLOCKING my path, and accusing me of killing babies. All because PP was on my way to work…oh, and I was a young woman. So I deserved the harassment of course.

            It makes me really angry that these lunatics went to a high school and did the same thing to children.

    • RWarren

      Actually, when I was going to Yorktown they had to allow some local nazi/socialist wannabe group to hold a meeting there. It made all the local media (pre-internet, mind you), and we all just dealt with it and learned a little about freedom and rights.

      glib glib glib…..

  • Dennis

    sad that the principal had to give an apology for their actions.

  • VaGurl

    yes, why were they at the school???? makes no sense?

    • bobco85

      Perhaps the Health classes at W-L are starting their curriculum on Sex Ed? That’s the best I can come up with at the moment.

      • drax

        And they don’t mention abortion in that curriculum.

        They do, however, talk about preventing pregnancy. You’d think they’d be all for that.

      • John Fontain

        Their website says the goal of the group is to show up at every school at least once a year to ‘educate us.’

        • Really?

          Hmmm, education at a public school. Now that’s one I haven’t heard before.

          The propaganda thugs will be out in force to prevent that from happening.

  • Larchmont

    They should just hire Braco. That Wonderboy could cure them all with his “mind bullets”.

    • Mrs Braco

      He made me pregnant just by staring at me! (or that’s what I told him)

  • Cate

    When groups like this protest, the photos they use are of miscarriages and stillbirths. That in itself is sad, but the actual tissue from an abortion is microscopic. Granted, that wouldn’t serve their purposes, would it.

    • novasteve

      YOu can no questions asked, get an abortion up to 20 weeks. Are you going to claim that’s microscopic?

      No worries, it’s a drawing, not graphic, it’s for expectant mothers.

      http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-20-weeks

      • Cate

        I’m really not going to care, because I don’t ever want children and I wouldn’t stay pregnant if contraception failed.

        • novasteve

          So you have no problem making others pay for for your choices, even with their lives, right? YOu dont’ care.

          • Cate

            *shrug*

            It’s not a life.

          • novasteve

            Because you say so? What is it then? And why aren’t adults just “clump of cells”. HOw much mental twisting do you have to do to justify you are killing your own child because it’s not convenient to you?

          • jackson

            If he doesn’t have a moral problem with it, and the supreme court didn’t, then you’re free to yell all you want, but it’s still the law.

          • Cate

            Because I don’t believe it’s a child. When a being can subsist outside of its host, it’s a person. Until then…nope.

            And don’t give me “convenient.” I don’t want children. I don’t like them. So I don’t have any and ergo am not a shitty parent like so many people in this world are because they think they’re “supposed” to have children.

            Men like you can never understand because you’re not the ones that would be forced to give up your body unwillingly to serve as a host for 9 months.

          • right wing flight

            I think God differs since it was his design.

          • drax

            You don’t get to tell us what God thinks.

          • The Bible

            Do you shave? You take some living cells along with your beard. Murderer!!!

          • novasteve

            My skin cells aren’t a life independent of me. I hope you know that sperm + egg = zygote which is alife independent of both of the parents. Did you take biology?

          • The Bible

            You can take the DNA from a skin cell of yours and use it to make a clone of yourself. However, if you kill that cell, you prevent the clone from being grown.

          • Checkmate

            A zygote isn’t a life independent of it’s mother, either.

            Take a zygote out of the mother, it dies. Take your skins cells off your face when you shave, they die.

        • dk (not DK)

          LOL. Steve, she is impervious to your fetal representation.

          • foetus

            because of Steve I lost the will to live anyway. Anyone got a cig?

    • Really?

      Umm, what is your point? That abortion is cleaner and more fun than a miscarriage?

      Or do you mean to say that the remains of the child are obliterated during the abortion process? Meaning that if it’s obliterated afterward, it wasn’t a child to begin with? The smaller the pieces, the less the atrocity?

      What evil planet did you come from?

      • Cate

        Same evil planet as yours, dear, since you’re here spewing misinformation.

        Get your head out of your bible and do some research with neutral sources.

        • novasteve

          You think you need the bible to think that’ it’s wrong to kill your own child because it isn’t convenient to you? Other than the high holidays, I don’t observe any judaism, so you throwing the bible out there is wrong. It’s wrong to use abortion as a form of birth control.

          • Cate

            Oh zip it. I don’t believe it’s a child. That line of lecturing works on me about as well as “cigarette smoke hurts people!” works on you.

          • The Bible

            People believe such weird nonsense.

          • Please?

            Marry me!

          • The Bible

            *-:

          • drax

            Every sperm is sacred.
            Every sperm is great.
            If a sperm is wasted,
            God gets quite irate.

          • The Bible

            If the is an abortion, there is no child.

          • The Bible

            there is*

        • Really?

          Cate, my dear little one, I’d kindly suggest you find another forum as befits your 3rd grade arguments.

          Or perhaps we can revisit my question – you refer to the “microscopicity” of body parts remaining after the abortive act as though it is some sort of evidence to support moral justification.

          Please, enlighten us as to where you found the moral basis of that little nugget.

  • John Fontain

    In related news, the Human Life Alliance issued a press release today reaffirming their support for the death penalty for those who abort their pregnancies.

    • It’s Me

      +1

  • Tamar

    Todd Akin claims that abortions take place on women who aren’t even pregnant. Protesters target kids using misleading photos taken from miscarriages and stillbirths. What a crazy world we live in! I guess the lesson for the W-L students was that sometimes you just have to let the crazies do their thing.

    • WLParent

      absolutely right

    • Really?

      Umm, what is your point? That abortion is cleaner and more fun than a miscarriage?

      Or do you mean to say that the remains of the child are obliterated during the abortion process? Meaning that if it’s obliterated afterward, it wasn’t a child to begin with? The smaller the pieces, the less the atrocity?

      What evil planet did you come from?

      • jackson

        Calm down and quit pasting the same comment, Francis.

  • Just lurking

    I absolutely agree that that group has the right to gather in a public place and express their opinions, but they should do it in a place where people can choose to attend (or not). It’s not right that they do this where students are a captive, and perhaps unwilling, audience. I have a student there, and as his parent, I appreciate that the school feels responsible for his safety. The teachable moments are up to his teachers when he’s at school, and up to me otherwise.

  • Reene

    Ugh, so inappropriate. Yes, 1st amendment rights and all that, but It’s a group of captive minors! At least find a place to protest where people are free to leave!

    • novasteve

      And you have no issue with all the indoctrination that occurs to that captive group of minors in the schools?

      • Mary-Austin

        You mean like science and facts?

        • novasteve

          You mean like man made global warming which completely ignored geology ? I suppose people were driving SUVs 10,000 years ago when the glaciers melted and formed the great lakes, right? Because only humans cause the climate to change.

          • drax

            You are not entitled to your own personal science, steve.

      • dk (not DK)

        Steve, you are totally correct. I have no issue with the indoctrination that occurs to that captive group of minors at W-L because I CHOOSE to send my child there. I have CHOSEN indoctrination by the County of Arlington. If I wanted my child to be brainwashed in a different manner, I would have CHOSEN another education warehouse for him. I would have CHOSEN a Catholic school, or a Muslim school, or a Jewish school, or a Baptist school, or a Quaker school, or a school for the children of 1 percenters, or whatever my favorite brand of propaganda might be. If I wanted my child to be brainwashed only by me, I would have CHOSEN to educate him at home.

        As a parent, I am entitled to indoctrinate my child as **I** see fit. I am sure you will agree with that principle.

        So, no, I have no issue with Arlington County Indoctrination (TM). Human Life Alliance indoctrination, however, is not my CHOICE. It is not a part of the Arlington County Indoctrination Curriculum. Therefore, I reject its inclusion in my child’s indoctrination experience.

  • drax

    I think what this will teach most of these kids is that anti-abortion people are scary and you should never talk to them and run away when you see one. Just the message they wanted to convey!

  • Clarenrude

    I think these guys were at the Clarendon Metro about a month ago. One guy had a huge sign with a bombed out cambodian village with dead people on one side and what looked to me like a red cricket in the palm of someone’s hand on the other side. The words said something like “Genocide” “Is is ever right?”.

  • Clarendon

    Maybe the happy croatian – gaze guy should go over there and take a look. Might make everyone feel better.

  • SomeGuy

    I get approached by people “attempting to distribute flyers and to engage [me] in discussion” all the time. Green Peace, Planned Parenthood, voter registration people, etc. It’s usually when I’m a “captive audience” at a metro station. But it doesn’t make the news.

    • novasteve

      Liberal darling groups/issues… That’s why.

      • Ballston

        It’s not about liberal vs conservative. People would be equally outraged if liberal groups were holding up graphic signs of war deaths to protest Iraq. It’s about people not wanting their children to be exposed to blood and gore at 8am. I don’t think that’s such a terrible thing to want.

        • drax

          EVERYTHING is about liberals for steve.

    • drax

      If someone ever came up to my kids with a grotesque picture and tried to engage them in discussion, though, it would make the news, if you know what I mean.

      • SomeGuy

        Sounds a little dramatic, drax. It’s an annoyance, but so is being approached by any activist group on the street, whether you’ve had an 18th birthday or not. That was my point.

        If you’re gonna “make the news” over someone conversing with your child in a non-violent/non-rapist way, your anger issues are more pronounced than I thought.

        • drax

          No, being approached by an activist group is an annoyance. Being approached by someone with pics like that and trying to talk directly to my kids is more than an annoyance.

          There are many reasons I can think of to defend my kids, and this is one of them. I feel sorry for your kids if you think shoving horrifying nightmare photos in their faces in the street and terrifying them isn’t one of those.

          (I guess I should clarify that my kids are young, not teens yet).

      • Novanglus

        +1

      • novasteve

        That’s what “choice” looks like.

  • carlynglen

    Dear Parents,

    Please don’t sue us .. we’re trying our very best to shield your children from all forms of reality (expect those approved by the APSD).

    Signed,
    Principal Spineless

    • novasteve

      LOL.

  • Arlington

    I heard they were carrying signs saying “Menstruation is Murder”.

  • Elizabeth L

    Abortion isn’t pretty. Children of that age hear about it in women’s rights discussions and it is a topic that continues to be discussed in the presidential election. The truth of what abortion is may influence the choice a woman makes. Being informed is important. Pro life or pro choice, the procedure is what it is.
    We now have to discuss contraception & abortion with inquisitive teenagers, and somehow justify why taxpayers should pay for everyone else’s sexual health choices…we expect them to wrap their heads around that but not a protest like this?

    This is an opportunity to exercise first amendment rights but also to have a conversation about the topic.

    • george

      Unwanted children who are neglected, abused, or malnourished aren’t pretty either. They are just as much a part of the argument as are photos of fetuses.

      • Neglected, abused, malnourished

        Regardless, I’ll take my chances with life, thank you.

      • novasteve

        So better off dead? Is that the new liberal motto?

  • Mary-Austin

    The lesson for the kids to take away from this:
    Right wing perverts in this country will stop at nothing to force their views and agenda on you.

    • novasteve

      Perverts? Do you even know what the word means?

      • Mary-Austin

        Yes…people showing up in front of a high school with pictures of aborted fetuses and harassing children.
        Also, those who see no problem with that behavior.

        • novasteve

          That’s not what a pervert is.

          • drax

            The shoe fits.

    • carlynglen

      @MaryAustin — feel free to remove your head from your arse anytime now

      • Mary-Austin

        Thanks for your lewd comments. Sounds like you don’t disagree with my point.

        • novasteve

          I’m so LGBT. Lettuce Guacamole Bacon and Tomato.

          • It’s Me

            Oh, so people aren’t free to be gay in your world view? They don’t have equal rights under the law not do be discriminated against for marrying, adopting, etc.? Guess your view of freedom is pretty limited. If not, I’m sure you 100%support gays to have exact same rights as the rest us as that is consistent with life/liberty/pursuit of happiness and the American way. Or is this a case where you think big gov. can intrude into our private lives?

  • Observer

    I wonder if any of the students agreed with the protestors? That would sure blow some minds, huh?

  • parent

    Teachable moment? Yes, actually. My son said these particular ‘protesters’ were more disturbing than the images.

  • Phoe

    If the images that the children were subjected to were on television, would they be considered for mature audiences? I watch TV so I would gander at yes. Question: How is a group able to claim free speech is showing photos (which would be socially unacceptable for children view), to children. Who are they to target kids and subject them to gruesome photos? Lawyers should look into child endangerment or “coercement” charges. I believe in free speech, but psychological detriment?? That almost constitutes abuse.

    • Undereducated

      Television is television, not a public forum. You’ve been watching too much MSNBC.

      Clearly, your statement that you believe in free speech is just empty words.

      Were you aware of the statistic that nearly 20 percent of abortions are performed on teenage girls? I guess not.

      • drax

        While I don’t think Phoe has a case, you completely fail to say why.

      • Phoe

        I suppose the demonstrators could have an “anti-having-sex” message and show kids photos of people having sex. This would be OK with all you folks that think the demonstrators were well within their rights?

  • JimPB

    Ages 14-17. Time for full and explicit sex education. And always good to reinforce the right of free speech.

    • dk (not DK)

      ITA. However, it is never time to feel frightened by someone screaming in your face.

    • Tabby_TwoTone

      Seriously. When the hormones are surging, nothing will put the brakes on them faster than hearing the details about STDs. :-P

      • Tabby_TwoTone

        Oh that tongue out face doesn’t look right. It looks happy. It’s supposed to look disgusted.

      • drax

        Someone should walk around with big photos of infected genitals outside of high schools!

  • Cate

    I appreciate the occasional anti-choice protestor, actually. The group I saw last week reminded me that I need to make my annual appointment for a checkup at Planned Parenthood. Probably would’ve forgotten otherwise.

  • ArlingtonStudent

    Wow, I see a lot of heated debate on here…
    I graduated from Washington-Lee last year and I must say, I am very disappointed in this demonstration outside of my old school.
    Aside from all of your rights, it still doesn’t matter what excuse you use. “Well I have my right to freedom of speech so I will exercise it as I please.” — Alright. You may do so, but I wouldn’t say the proper way to go about it is by standing in front of a high school directing a very controversial subject to young students. Yes, sex education is important but you have a problem with the way a school teaches sex ed, then go to the school board. Do not bombard students with this.
    It honestly all comes down to morals.
    You have the right to freedom of speech but what you with it really says something about you. Be mature enough to choose a proper way to deal with these things. What did these students do to deserve to be handed papers of gruesome aborted fetuses? Nothing.
    I don’t care who has the right to do whatever, I care about how people exercise it and what kind of manner they choose to do it in.
    This was just a hugely absurd demonstration.

    Really, what does this teach the students at Washington-Lee? Nothing.

    • novasteve

      Don’t you dare tell people how they should exercise their first amendment rights. perhaps when you mature and outgrow the indoctrination you’ve had for the past 12 years, you might change your views. Welcome to the real world pal. You walk down the street every day seeing things you don’t want to see, smell things you dont’ want to smell. That’s part of dealing with life.

      • Mary-Austin

        Coming from the guy who whines about people clapping loudly and motorcycle sounds.

        • Tabby_TwoTone

          I smell toast!

      • drax

        And part of life is people telling you what they think of your speech, steve. You of all people should know that.

  • Lawlboy

    I go to this school why couldn’t they have just picked Yorktown high school?

    • Undereducated

      Next week.

  • Awesome

    I love these kinds of displays. Really. Although it might make some high-schoolers uncomfortable or offended, I think they can handle it. But just like white supremecists and neo-nazis, every time these whackos come out of the woodwork the more they remind the public at large of how much they’ve lost touch with reality, making a mockery of themselves and making them more and more marginalized by the rest of educated society.

    And that’s awesome.

    Having a private conversation with your kids about the real implications of the Constitution and/or why nutjobs adopt extremist views is just icing on the cake.

    • dk (not DK)

      You know….you are right! :-)

  • George

    I’m wondering why the same obscenity laws which apply to the public display of pornography do not apply to the public display of grotesque photos.

  • Yes, Really

    Deep down, “pro-lifers” accept that a fetus is not a “baby” or “life.” And here’s why:

    If a pro-lifer was in a nursery, and someone was going around killing the kids, one by one, would they just stand by and shout “that’s wrong!” or would they call the cops? Or physically restrain the subject?

    Yet, in the case of abortion, that’s all they do. They accept that a fetus is “different” or they would be doing more to stop it yell about changing the law.

    • drax

      Yes, well put. The only ones who live up to their rhetoric are the clinic bombers.

  • Undereducated

    “They had signs and attempted to distribute flyers and to engage students in discussion.” Regardless of the message, these citizens were exercising their rights afforded by the First Amendment.

    “No advance notice was given to Arlington Public Schools or to Washington-Lee and this was not an approved event.” It is arrogant on the part of APS and Principal Robertson to believe they can approve the exercising of Free Speech.

    “Please be assured it is not anything we would ever approve or encourage, and we regret that the events took place this morning.” What kind of people are inside the APS that they would make a public statement that they would never approve of citizens exercising their First Amendment rights. And then to regret it? We all should rejoice that our Founding Fathers understood the importance of Free Speech to a free society.

    The real indignation here should be that anyone in APS that was involved in this issue from the Principal on up are not on administrative leave for violation of a basic Human Right.

    • drax

      He meant the school didn’t approve of it on school grounds. Which it wouldn’t have, and shouldn’t have. Some parents might have though it was on school property.

      • Undereducated

        People should not put out statements in writing if they don’t mean what they write, especially an educator. The meaning is in what he wrote, not your interpretation of what he wrote.

        • drax

          I agree that the letter could have been written better.

×

Subscribe to our mailing list