Coakley: Catholics Shouldn’t Work in ER’s

It's sad that even the radio interviewer, who is supposedly trying to stick up for Catholics' rights, misrepresents Catholic teaching. The opposition to "emergency contraception" in this case would not be because it is contraception, but precicely because it is not. It does not prevent a pregnancy, it ends a pregnancy.

Here in South Africa, our doctors and nurses refused to perform abortion en masse, I think they succeeded in getting conscience protection, I think a strike will be in order if healthcare there is turned entirely into death-care!

Sad to say I agree with Anonymous – it probably won't hurt her. But it should!

I'm in "Catholic-heavy Massachusetts" where too many Catholics have bought into Coakley-like thinking. They're personally opposed to abortion, but wouldn't lift a finger (even in the voting booth) to stop anyone else from having one. When my wife was younger she was one of those types. She grew up in a nominally Catholic household. When she went to an exclusive private college where even being a cafeteria Catholic marked you as an "anti-choice" fanatic. She bought into the "personally opposed" argument for a long time. It wasn't until 1999 and the birth of our first child that she saw the light. It finally dawned on her that if it's "just a clump of cells" in the womb then it's still "just a clump of cells" eighty years later (and all the time in between).

Anyway, if you're not in Massachusetts you might be surprised at how much damage was done to the Church and her teachings by the example of people like Ted Kennedy.

Mrs. Coakly is giving a voice to the sentiment of MANY non-religious and atheist liberals. You religious belief is fine as long as you "wear it like a warm sweater." They believe that if you REALLY believe in Jesus Christ and adhere to your religious principals then you are a cook. Obey the law!, they say. If you are a pharmacist, you MUST dispense contraceptives. It's the law! If you believe in God actually SHAPES your character, then it probably interferes with your work performance. If your beliefs prohibit you from giving in to the demands of other people, even if those demands are immoral, you must be removed from that office/hospital/pharmacy/school, etc. They really do believe this. I have talked to plenty, plenty, plenty of them. And every time good Christians, especially Catholics, cave in to their demands, the louder they scream. Wake up! They want to push all authentic Christians into a dark corner and silence them forever.

So that's what passes for religious freedom these days? Having your job options limited because of your religious beliefs? Why don't we just say Jews can't be school teachers and Muslims can't be electricians?

This is the Attorney General of the State! She is a lawyer who presumably know what the US Constitution says? Right? It says moral and religious beliefs are a completely private affair and you can be compelled to perform acts that are morally repugnant to you or be fired. Better yet, why not take away the license of any doctor who won't perform abortions? Years of training and tuition and your flipping burgers at McD's. Well if religion and morality are purely private what is the justification for helping the poor? Why provide universal health care? That's not a moral issue? Don't mention morality unless you want to use the arguement to enlarge gov't….? I am just trying to make sense of the liberal view of morality.

For many (most?) liberals, morality isn't about making sense, it's about feeling good; not reason, but warm fuzzies. And in many cases, that may be ok. The problem arises when warm fuzzies collide, and then which way do you go? Eg, let a pregnant woman out of a difficult situation, or let a human being be born? Morality that makes use of reason rather than just relying on feelings makes the decision clear.

c matt

It really is the very soul of Mass on the line. She can't even spell the State's name!

Though I, for one, am enjoying the stupid "He's not the reddest guy ever!" whining. Yeah, I'd rather Brown was pro-life, but at least he's pro-sanity!

I am a Catholic, pro-life Emergency Physician in Akron, Ohio. I do not prescribe contraception, morning after pills, or refer for abortions.

My only regrets are that I can't vote in Massachusetts and that Scott Brown is not more pro-life. How often must we choose between the lesser of two evils?.

I shouldn't be working in an Emergency Dept?? Where is the ACLU when you need them?

Gary G