?

Leaning right, leaning left, YBH!
Thursday February 2nd 2012

Martha Coakley To Catholics “Probably Shouldn’t Work In The Emergency Room”

Share in an emailShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Stumble UponShare on RedditShare on DiggSubscribe to Yes, But, However!Print this articleybh spacer

BOSTON (YBH.ME) – This morning on WBSM Massachusetts Senate Candidate Martha Coakley said that Catholics “can have religious freedom, you, you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”  Ms. Coakley then defended her remarks by saying that, “Roe vs Wade has made it clear that a woman has the right to choose.”

The so-called “conscience clause” in medical care, whereas individual health care workers would have the right to abstain from performing medical procedures they find morally objectionable has made headlines in recent years.   Ms. Coakley said that anyone using the conscience clause would be “affecting [a rape victims] constitutional rights.”

Martha Coakley on the ropes in Massachusetts?

Listen to the exchange here:

Ms. Coakley was a caller to the Ken Pittman show in New Bedford when the exchange occurred.  During the interview Ms. Coakley also took issue with President Obama’s sending additional troops to Afghanistan.

39% of the population in the state of Massachusetts are self described Catholics.

Related posts:

  1. Your Tax Dollars at Work: FEMA Chief Apologizes For Widespread Glitches In Emergency Alert System Test.
  2. Source: Murdoch Entity Bugged Variety Show Green Room
  3. Not even Solyndra? Solar Panels Don’t Work. And No One Knows.
  4. Your Tax Dollars At Work: U.S. Military Loses $360 Million To Afghanistan Insurgents, Criminals
John Romano is the publisher and editor of Yes, But However!, a musician, a former political correspondent for BBC Radio London, and a serial web entrepreneur. Follow him on twitter: twitter.com/yesbuthowever or John Romano on Google+

article archive.

Post Published: 15 January 2010
Found in section: Politics
  • Fred

    Martha Coakley has not even followed her logic through. She wants to take a strong stance on what she amibiguously calls “Choice” This radical stance has repercussions she has not thought about. It seems during the interview she is having revelations as the questions are being asked.
    Now she is in a position where she gets to choose between her faith and protecting doctor’s conscience decisions and her party’s rhetoric. Then bam, she’s faced with the logical conflict that makes her put her foot in her mouth. Logically, to continue along her reasoning, you inevitably end up having to threaten doctors with jail time.
    She simply isn’t thoughtful enough for the job.
    Lets put it this way, she’s for partial birth abortion. It doesn’t get more radical than that

  • Mary

    If Catholics and other pro-life people (who comprise over 50 percent of our population) are not permitted to have conscience protections when working in the medical professions we will all pay a heavy price. There is already a shortage of medical professionals, due to the cost of a medical degree and malpractice insurance, and lowered wages for doctors who start their careers steeped in debt. If you eliminate a large number of people from practicing medicine or create a reluctance for young, pro-life people to enter a medical career, the shortage of available health care will surely become a crisis. Not very well thought out at all, Martha. Do you ever think ahead?

    • Maureen

      A Fetus is always a human being, from the moment of conception. We all know that. It is between a woman and her God . As for late term abortion: Between the Abortion DR< God and the Devil!

  • John Paul

    A fetus is not a human being.

    The pope is a retard.

    • concerned person

      and the pope says have mercy on your sole.

    • D.S.

      A Fetus is a living thing.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/rtwngr eRtwngr

    If a rape victim is in need of physical healing, emotional support, and spiritual strength through their ordeal, there is no better place than the Catholic hospital system. If all they want is a pill, then they can go elsewhere and Caritas will even provide a ride. It's sad to see the naked bigotry from former Catholic Coakley. But that is nothing new for Democrats whose hands are stained with the blood of children and their pockets lined with blood money from Planned Parenthood.

  • Seamus

    One of the first needs the growing Church faced in the mid-nineteenth century was the establishment of health care through a network of hospitals, hospices, clinics, home nursing programs. The "nuns of the battlefield" in the civil war opened the door to women in the nursing profession. FIgures like Mother Cabrini made sure that the underserved and the poor had access to hospital care. In our day, Catholic social teaching insists on health care as a basic human right to be defended and developed. Today, Catholic physicians and health care workers often see their profession as a response to God's call to service. Coakley's position is unfathomable and shallow and an offense to all people who treasure the dignity of their own good conscience. I heartily agree with eRtwngr above. Very sad.

  • David

    I guess Martha Coakley believes that our constitutional rights only pertain to us when it supports her positions. The separation of church and state should work both ways. If someone goes to a Catholic hospital, a person who wants to have an abortion should expect that they might have a problem with it and should go to another hospital to have the procedure, which is what Brown actually proposed.