“You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”
Democrat Martha Coakley was on with Ken Pittman from WBSM in Massachusetts today. Martha told Ken that if you object to abortion and are a devout Catholic then…
“You probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”
From the interview:
Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.
Martha Coakley: No we have a seperation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.
Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.
Martha Coakley: (……uh, eh…um..) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.
The entire interview is posted here.
ENJOY THE COMMENTS:
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
January 14th, 2010 | 8:13 pm | #1
You don’t have to be bright or competent to be an elected Democrat.
January 14th, 2010 | 8:15 pm | #2
Prosecutor sees assault and does nothing — caught on film.
Candidate tells Catholics that they have “religious freedom” but shouldn’t work in an Emergency Room if they want to actually exercise it — caught on tape.
It would seem that SOMEONE could make a couple of good commercials out of these….
January 14th, 2010 | 8:17 pm | #3
[...] more: GAME-CHANGER—Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics “Probably Shouldn’t Work in the Emer… [...]
January 14th, 2010 | 8:21 pm | #4
Well then, with my ‘Religious Freedom’ maybe I shouldn’t be having my Tax Dollars going to fund Abortion in the National Health Care Bill too.
Just sayin’ since Coakley points out the ‘Church and State’ thingy.
January 14th, 2010 | 8:23 pm | #5
[...] Updates at Gateway Pundit. [...]
January 14th, 2010 | 8:23 pm | #6
Is she trying to lose. Alienate sports fans. Check. Alienate catholics. Check. Energize conservatives check.
January 14th, 2010 | 8:23 pm | #7
they perform abortions in emergency rooms?
January 14th, 2010 | 8:24 pm | #8
Watch what happens when REAL Catholic hospitals decide to CLOSE over the abortion issue. Booyah!
January 14th, 2010 | 8:33 pm | #9
Is she for real?
Are Mass. people listening to this nitwit?
Americans should be scared. Very scared. Democrats = idiots
I would be so embarrassed to call myself a Democrat.
January 14th, 2010 | 8:34 pm | #10
First of all comes the declaration I am a Catholic who attends church.
Now for my commentary on what Coakley thinks:
1. The woman does not understand the meaning of separation of church and state. Her response is a classic fail. To understand the real meaning (something it seems that your Supreme Court does not understand at all) you have to look at the intent of the framers of your Constitution. In other words the events that led people to emigrate to the New World. In the society that they left behind in GB and Europe there was no separation of church and state, and the state determined your religion. This is best explained by looking at the Roman Empire where the emperor had been considered as a god, and people were forced to worship the emperor – which Christians refused to do and were persecuted. The other example comes from Great Britain where the King of England determined the state religion thus when Henry VIII ceded from the Church in Rome he declared himself head of the Church of England and those who did not conform were persecuted suffering an extreme form of punishment (off with his head). This was repeated by Mary and then Elizabeth followed by the Puritans.
In other words what your constitution is about is not freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. This means that no single denomination or religion will be the state religion. To clarify this means that Islam and Sharia would be unconstitutional in the USA because that would be imposing a religion upon all members of the society which is in fact how this should be read.
2. Martha says that Catholics and others who believe the same should not be working in the emergency room if they are anti-abortion. It seems that Martha Coakley is not aware of the law of contract which exists and is upheld by Scott Brown (at least my interpretation of what he supports). From what I understand, any doctor or nurse who does not support abortion at the time they are employed by the hospital can have an agreement where this is acknowledged. This is a binding agreement between the hospital board and the staff member.
Also, most doctors and nurses would agree that there are medical emergencies where it might be necessary to do a procedure that would end the life of an unborn infant. For example in the case of eclampsia I am sure that such staff will make an informed decision on the strategy that is required to ensure the mother does not die. If the eclampsia happens at an early stage of the pregnancy then the loss of the baby is one of the consequences in saving the mother’s life, but if it is in a later stage, then there is no excuse for not offering a caesarian operation to the mother, if at all possible to save the baby’s life.
What Coakley is really saying here is that it is ok to force Catholic hospitals to hand out “the morning after pill” and to perform abortion on demand.
On the other hand the voting of Scott Brown seems to be that he accepts that hospitals should not be forced to prescribe the morning after pill, or for that matter Catholic staff should not be forced to participate in procedures that they find to be abhorrent according to the teachings of the Catholic church.
January 14th, 2010 | 8:37 pm | #11
[...] UPDATE: Coakley audio. [...]
January 14th, 2010 | 8:39 pm | #12
She is smart enough to work for Obama! He tends to pick those that don’t comprehend much as it makes Obamas teleprompter that much smarter.
January 14th, 2010 | 8:41 pm | #13
Call me cynical but…is she trying to lose the election?
January 14th, 2010 | 8:43 pm | #14
In other words she views physicians as extensions of the State, employees, etc..
Last time I checked I was a free man and not bound to the morality imposed upon me by my government.
This should be an eye opener to what this party thinks all physicians will be/should be.. defacto extensions of government imposed rules. those with morals out of line with the party will be out of a job.
Did any one else in this country go to college till they were 30 to become a puppet of their government? I do not appreciate the implication here that my government somehow “owns” my services. It is sort of like the eminent domain statutes except it applies to my profession and not my property.
Many sad things happen in emergency rooms. Those of us who are “religious” do not impose our morals on those we treat. We impose our compassion.
January 14th, 2010 | 8:44 pm | #15
Let’s see…. around 600 Catholic hospitals in the U.S. that serve nearly 90 million people a year.
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor says Obama. You just won’t be able to find him any more.
January 14th, 2010 | 8:45 pm | #16
lmao Carmella (#7)
Coakley is just unable to stop being herself. It’s sad. Not that I mind, of course, I’m voting for Brown.
January 14th, 2010 | 8:46 pm | #17
Scott Brown is collecting 1 Million per day from concerned Americans. Top THAT! SEIU, DNC and DSCC!
January 14th, 2010 | 8:46 pm | #18
This woman is clearly too stupid to breathe. OK, MA, it is on. If you vote this mind numb robot in, you will never get her out until she chooses assisted suicide.
For God’s sake, do everything in your power to defeat her.
January 14th, 2010 | 8:48 pm | #19
BWAHAHAHAHA!
SHE’S FREAKIN GAFFETASTIC!
RANKED ON FENWAY FANS AND NOW THE RC CHURCH! SAID THERE WERE NO AL Q IN AFGHANISTAN.
SHEESH.
I KNOW WHY OBAMA WANTS HER IN DC:
SHE’LL MAKE BIDEN LOOK SMART!
January 14th, 2010 | 8:53 pm | #20
[...] This candidate has some serious foot-in-mouth disease, to go along with her radical pro-abortion stance. See the story here. [...]
January 14th, 2010 | 8:57 pm | #21
There needs to be a Mardi Gras SNAKE-FLAG fest of outraged American Patriots taking over the streets of Massachusetts on Jan. 19-20!
Ok…who is in charge of organizing this event?
January 14th, 2010 | 8:13 pm | #1
You don’t have to be bright or competent to be an elected Democrat.
January 14th, 2010 | 8:15 pm | #2
Prosecutor sees assault and does nothing — caught on film.
Candidate tells Catholics that they have “religious freedom” but shouldn’t work in an Emergency Room if they want to actually exercise it — caught on tape.
It would seem that SOMEONE could make a couple of good commercials out of these….
January 14th, 2010 | 8:17 pm | #3
[...] more: GAME-CHANGER—Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics “Probably Shouldn’t Work in the Emer… [...]
January 14th, 2010 | 8:21 pm | #4
Well then, with my ‘Religious Freedom’ maybe I shouldn’t be having my Tax Dollars going to fund Abortion in the National Health Care Bill too.
Just sayin’ since Coakley points out the ‘Church and State’ thingy.
January 14th, 2010 | 8:23 pm | #5
[...] Updates at Gateway Pundit. [...]
January 14th, 2010 | 8:23 pm | #6
Is she trying to lose. Alienate sports fans. Check. Alienate catholics. Check. Energize conservatives check.
January 14th, 2010 | 8:23 pm | #7
they perform abortions in emergency rooms?
January 14th, 2010 | 8:24 pm | #8
Watch what happens when REAL Catholic hospitals decide to CLOSE over the abortion issue. Booyah!
January 14th, 2010 | 8:33 pm | #9
Is she for real?
Are Mass. people listening to this nitwit?
Americans should be scared. Very scared. Democrats = idiots
I would be so embarrassed to call myself a Democrat.
January 14th, 2010 | 8:34 pm | #10
First of all comes the declaration I am a Catholic who attends church.
Now for my commentary on what Coakley thinks:
1. The woman does not understand the meaning of separation of church and state. Her response is a classic fail. To understand the real meaning (something it seems that your Supreme Court does not understand at all) you have to look at the intent of the framers of your Constitution. In other words the events that led people to emigrate to the New World. In the society that they left behind in GB and Europe there was no separation of church and state, and the state determined your religion. This is best explained by looking at the Roman Empire where the emperor had been considered as a god, and people were forced to worship the emperor – which Christians refused to do and were persecuted. The other example comes from Great Britain where the King of England determined the state religion thus when Henry VIII ceded from the Church in Rome he declared himself head of the Church of England and those who did not conform were persecuted suffering an extreme form of punishment (off with his head). This was repeated by Mary and then Elizabeth followed by the Puritans.
In other words what your constitution is about is not freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. This means that no single denomination or religion will be the state religion. To clarify this means that Islam and Sharia would be unconstitutional in the USA because that would be imposing a religion upon all members of the society which is in fact how this should be read.
2. Martha says that Catholics and others who believe the same should not be working in the emergency room if they are anti-abortion. It seems that Martha Coakley is not aware of the law of contract which exists and is upheld by Scott Brown (at least my interpretation of what he supports). From what I understand, any doctor or nurse who does not support abortion at the time they are employed by the hospital can have an agreement where this is acknowledged. This is a binding agreement between the hospital board and the staff member.
Also, most doctors and nurses would agree that there are medical emergencies where it might be necessary to do a procedure that would end the life of an unborn infant. For example in the case of eclampsia I am sure that such staff will make an informed decision on the strategy that is required to ensure the mother does not die. If the eclampsia happens at an early stage of the pregnancy then the loss of the baby is one of the consequences in saving the mother’s life, but if it is in a later stage, then there is no excuse for not offering a caesarian operation to the mother, if at all possible to save the baby’s life.
What Coakley is really saying here is that it is ok to force Catholic hospitals to hand out “the morning after pill” and to perform abortion on demand.
On the other hand the voting of Scott Brown seems to be that he accepts that hospitals should not be forced to prescribe the morning after pill, or for that matter Catholic staff should not be forced to participate in procedures that they find to be abhorrent according to the teachings of the Catholic church.
January 14th, 2010 | 8:37 pm | #11
[...] UPDATE: Coakley audio. [...]
January 14th, 2010 | 8:39 pm | #12
She is smart enough to work for Obama! He tends to pick those that don’t comprehend much as it makes Obamas teleprompter that much smarter.
January 14th, 2010 | 8:41 pm | #13
Call me cynical but…is she trying to lose the election?
January 14th, 2010 | 8:43 pm | #14
In other words she views physicians as extensions of the State, employees, etc..
Last time I checked I was a free man and not bound to the morality imposed upon me by my government.
This should be an eye opener to what this party thinks all physicians will be/should be.. defacto extensions of government imposed rules. those with morals out of line with the party will be out of a job.
Did any one else in this country go to college till they were 30 to become a puppet of their government? I do not appreciate the implication here that my government somehow “owns” my services. It is sort of like the eminent domain statutes except it applies to my profession and not my property.
Many sad things happen in emergency rooms. Those of us who are “religious” do not impose our morals on those we treat. We impose our compassion.
January 14th, 2010 | 8:44 pm | #15
Let’s see…. around 600 Catholic hospitals in the U.S. that serve nearly 90 million people a year.
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor says Obama. You just won’t be able to find him any more.
January 14th, 2010 | 8:45 pm | #16
lmao Carmella (#7)
Coakley is just unable to stop being herself. It’s sad. Not that I mind, of course, I’m voting for Brown.
January 14th, 2010 | 8:46 pm | #17
Scott Brown is collecting 1 Million per day from concerned Americans. Top THAT! SEIU, DNC and DSCC!
January 14th, 2010 | 8:46 pm | #18
This woman is clearly too stupid to breathe. OK, MA, it is on. If you vote this mind numb robot in, you will never get her out until she chooses assisted suicide.
For God’s sake, do everything in your power to defeat her.
January 14th, 2010 | 8:48 pm | #19
BWAHAHAHAHA!
SHE’S FREAKIN GAFFETASTIC!
RANKED ON FENWAY FANS AND NOW THE RC CHURCH! SAID THERE WERE NO AL Q IN AFGHANISTAN.
SHEESH.
I KNOW WHY OBAMA WANTS HER IN DC:
SHE’LL MAKE BIDEN LOOK SMART!
January 14th, 2010 | 8:53 pm | #20
[...] This candidate has some serious foot-in-mouth disease, to go along with her radical pro-abortion stance. See the story here. [...]
January 14th, 2010 | 8:57 pm | #21
There needs to be a Mardi Gras SNAKE-FLAG fest of outraged American Patriots taking over the streets of Massachusetts on Jan. 19-20!
Ok…who is in charge of organizing this event?