Pray to defeat politician : Catholics should not be in the ER
#1
[size=10pt]Dem Candidate: Devout Catholics 'Probably Shouldn't Work in the Emergency Room'[/size]
Potential health care reform killer Scott Brown leaps ahead in polls

By Kathleen Gilbert

BOSTON, Massachusetts, January 15, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a local radio interview Thursday, the Democrat candidate for Massachusetts' special U.S. senate election, Martha Coakley, said that those who object to participating in abortion and contraception, "probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room."

Coakley was responding to WBSM radio host Ken Pittman as he questioned her on her views about the role of conscience rights for health care workers.

Pittman asked, "Would you pass a health care bill that had [provisions protecting] conscientious objector(s)  towards certain procedures including abortion?"

Coakley said she opposed an amendment filed by Republican candidate and state senator Scott Brown in a Massachusetts measure to protect the right of health care workers' not to distribute emergency contraception against their religious beliefs.

PITTMAN: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin, uh, you don’t want to do that.

COAKLEY: No, but we have a seperation of church and state Ken, let’s be clear.

PITTMAN: Yeah, in the emergency room, you still have your religious freedom.

COAKLEY: [stuttering] The law says that people are allowed to have that. And so then, you can have religious freedom, but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.

PITTMAN: Wow.  Ok.

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League expressed shock at Coakley's apparent disregard for religious liberty.

"Conscientious objector rights are essential to religous liberty," Donohue told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) Friday morning.  "I don't quite understand how someone - even if someone were an atheist - it's a staple in a free society that people cannot be forced to violate their conscience on something that's morally repugnant.  But she doesn't seem to care."

The special election pitting Coakley against Republican Scott Brown in next Tuesday's election has received national attention: the unexpected popularity of the dark horse Republican could jeopardize the future of President Obama's health care bill by robbing Senate Democrats of their filibuster-proof 60 vote majority.  Brown has vowed to be the "41st vote" against the health care overhaul, a platform that appears to have attracted rapid support for his candidacy amid widespread public discontent over the bill.

Once considered the easy favorite, Coakley has suffered a dramatic drop in poll numbers this week: a CrossTarget poll Thursday showed Brown ahead by 15.4%, while a Suffolk University Political Research Center published Thursday morning showed Brown ahead by 4%.

Some Massachusetts officials say, however, that even should Brown win the election, the swearing-in process could be delayed for weeks - long enough for the health bill to be pushed through.


See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Massachusetts Dark Horse Candidate Could Kill Health Bill
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10011202.html

Edit by Quis - Fix formatting (remove strikeout)
Reply
#2
Why the strike out?

Quote:No, but we have a seperation of church and state Ken, let’s be clear.

Look who doesn't know the law. There is no established state religion. There is no such thing as separation of Church and state any more than there is separation of people and their race.
Reply
#3
(01-16-2010, 04:00 PM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote: Why the strike out?

There was an "s" in brackets in the article so the BBCode was interpreted.  I fixed it.
Reply
#4
(01-16-2010, 04:08 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(01-16-2010, 04:00 PM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote: Why the strike out?

There was an "s" in brackets in the article so the BBCode was interpreted.  I fixed it.

Ah, makes sense.

I thought it was a bizarre implementation of keeping posts short or with a good summary as I advocated in another thread.
Reply
#5
(01-16-2010, 03:38 PM)Magdalene Wrote: [size=10pt]Dem Candidate: Devout Catholics 'Probably Shouldn't Work in the Emergency Room'[/size]


Once considered the easy favorite, Coakley has suffered a dramatic drop in poll numbers this week: a CrossTarget poll Thursday showed Brown ahead by 15.4%, while a Suffolk University Political Research Center published Thursday morning showed Brown ahead by 4%.

Some Massachusetts officials say, however, that even should Brown win the election, the swearing-in process could be delayed for weeks - long enough for the health bill to be pushed through.


Edit by Quis - Fix formatting (remove strikeout)


That's a BIG spread between the two polls.  That second one could even be a "statistical tie," where the leader is only in the lead within however many points the margin of error is determined to be.
Reply
#6
Unfortunately, Brown is pro-abort, so there we'd have another pro-abort Republican. 
Reply
#7

why shouldn't Catholics work in an ER?

does she think Catholic doctors and nurses wouldn't try to save a woman whose life was in danger due to an abortion performed elsewhere?  if so, she's very misinformed.

most likely, she's worried that rape victims wouldn't get "emergency contraception" but that's unlikely unless everybody in the ER is Catholic and follows Church teaching, which is unlikely even in a Catholic hospital these days.  if one doctor told her he couldn't prescribe it for religious reasons,  a nurse or assistant would probably bring in another doctor to write the prescription. 

that's how prescriptions for oral contraceptives were handled in the military more than forty years ago.  an older friend told me she asked the OB who delivered her baby to give her the pill at her post-partum checkup.  he just said he couldn't and left the room, but the nurse who was in the room during the exam explained "Dr. D. is Catholic, you just need to ask another doctor," and took her to one. 

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)