No one is upholding out of wedlock sex. However, once you get self-righteous prigs taking it upon themselves to interrogate pregnant women about the date of conception, you’ve gone waaaay too far.
All my kids were born early. (Of course, I had already been married years.)
Heck with it being a first baby, those are notoriously late. The baby could have been born nine months after the wedding.
The contract also probably says that employees can’t drink. Would they fire someone if they found out they had a glass of champagne at a wedding? They probably would just remind the employee about the contract.
"Interrogated"? They asked her a simple question, which she answered. It was a question directly pertaining to her contractual obligations to the school. The school erred in subsequently telling other teachers and parents, but not in asking her about it, in and of itself.
You might consider reading the other posts on this thread before typing. That is exactly what many are upholding, and with great vehemence.
This was to be expected, unless you forget who Ron Paul's constituents are, and what drives them.