This video is shocking. Wow. Wow. Wow. Not a surprise “Wow.” But like “wow” is Senate candidate Martha Coakley so politically unaware that she just said what all those liberals actually think about religious people.
Martha Coakley said on the radio that she’s against conscience protections and then added in answer to a question about Catholics in particular:
“you can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in an emergency room.”
So what she’s saying is that you can believe whatever you want but you have to do what the government tells you to do. So you can have your religion as long as it doesn’t affect your life.
I can’t imagine this will help her chances in Catholic-heavy Massachusetts.
Go check out Axis of Right for more commentary.
And Ace has a piece up about Coakley denying a heart transplant for political reasons. Wow again.
January 15, 2010 at 5:09 am
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.
January 15, 2010 at 5:38 am
Hmm, I'm a Catholic medical student. Its starting to look like I'm going to get done with school just in time to go to jail (for refusing certain procedures).
January 15, 2010 at 11:39 am
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!
January 15, 2010 at 11:41 am
"I can't imagine this will help her chances in Catholic-heavy Massachusetts."
Not so sure about that – they kept the Kennedys in power for years. In fact I doubt if many of them will disagree with Coakley.
January 15, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Sad to say I agree with Anonymous – it probably won't hurt her. But it should!
January 15, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Unfortunately for us in the USA, I don't think the liberals here would give a second thought to rounding us all up and sending us to jail, to the point of creating special "detention centers" specifically for this kind of offense…
January 15, 2010 at 12:56 pm
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.
January 15, 2010 at 1:27 pm
as you know there is a race here in Massachusetts, hopefully our one party rule will end. many people may call me a republican, but I will never hold loyalty to a party, despite yes I do vote GOP often. It was Catholics loyalty to the Democratic party (idol worship), that brought on this hell. The cracks are there, it's breaking. This isn't about GOP vs. Dem, but rather one party rule. I'm sure in red states, the corruption is equal to what we have in blue states. Never take anything for granted, be vigiliant so if a platform of a party become corrupt that communitity will have a good oppotunity to oust the incumbent.
January 15, 2010 at 2:03 pm
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.
January 15, 2010 at 2:06 pm
If you live in MA (as I do) then please please please vote on Tuesday–Scott Brown really does have a chance!
January 15, 2010 at 2:11 pm
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?
January 15, 2010 at 5:04 pm
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.
You are correct that emrgency contraception is not really contraception. But the Church teaches that contraception is also an intrinsic evil. Even if emergency contraception worked as a contraceptive, it would still be against Catholic teaching.
January 15, 2010 at 5:20 pm
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.
January 15, 2010 at 5:21 pm
I am just trying to make sense of the liberal view of morality.
Good luck with that.
January 15, 2010 at 5:27 pm
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.
January 15, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Does she think she is the queen of America?
January 15, 2010 at 9:39 pm
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!
January 16, 2010 at 12:05 am
January 16, 2010 at 7:40 pm
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?
January 17, 2010 at 10:12 pm
Anyone who goes to an emergency room had better hope that a practicing Catholic is working there. We need doctors and nurses who will be spokespersons for life. I don't want organs taken out or life support disconnected before they should be. Abortion is only one end of the pro life spectrum.