Friday, January 15, 2010

Coakley: "Catholics Shouldn't Work in Emergency Rooms"

Wow, the gaffes just keep on comin' from the Martha Coakley campaign, this time from Martha herself. Her latest from an interview with radio show host Ken Pittman.

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."

Coakley: "No we have a seperation of church and state Ken, lets be clear."

Pittman: "In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom."

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. (emphasis mine)

Wow, just...wow. This woman is DONE. You don't say things like that in a state as heavily Catholic as Massachusetts. Scott Brown closed the gap on her, and now she has gotten desperate and anxious, and it appears to be clouding her judgment. Talk about a meltdown of a campaign, this is getting really bad really fast for her.

And no, it doesn't bother me one bit :)

(h/t Michelle Malkin)

7 comments:

Spock said...

Dogmatic religious freaks do not belong proselytizing where there are life/death decisions to be made.

Now, we all know that not all Catholics, in fact most Catholics, are not out to keep birth control from a medical patient.

But, any kind of person who would refuse to do their job and interfere with medical care because of their religious beliefs should not be a medical care giver.

Phil Chroniger said...

I think they should be able to give medical care, but there can always be someone else to handle situations where that person cannot.

If a person does not believe in something like birth control, does that really make them a dogmatic religious freak?

Spock said...

Phil- If one does not believe in birth control on a personal level, then no they are not a dogmatic religious freak.

But, if a person believes that it is their mission in life to keep birth control from the people, and use their positions in the healthcare industry to impose this mission, then yes they are.

Using a healthcare position to keep the people from their own reproductive choices is equivalent to Joseph Dejarnette sterilizing poor children back in the 30's without them knowing.

The power of reproductive choices belongs to the individual, NOT the government, the churches and dogmatic religious healthcare providers.

Phil Chroniger said...

When you put it that way, I can completely agree with you.

Spock said...

Phil- You're a pro-choice Republican?

I didn't think there were Republicans with any sense of individual freedoms left.

Phil Chroniger said...

Pro-choice in the sense that I believe a woman's decision to do such a thing is between her, her doctor, and God.

I do have limits on how far I will agree with pro-choice, like partial-birth abortions are something I just can't go with unless you are talking about immediate danger to the life of the mother. Outside of that one situation, I do believe it to be infanticide.

Otherwise, I guess you could say I'm pro-choice...just anti-government involvement of any kind in such a personal matter.

John said...

Let's look at who runs the hospitals
Government run means that you have no choice but to do your job. That job is to save lives not end them. Abortion is not saving lives. Prevention of pregnancy is not ending life but it does prevent life from beginning.Thus what role does a hospital play in preventing a pregnancy. About the same role as using other methods such as abstinence. So don't engage or use a product available at your Drug store. Don't overuse our hospitals.

If the hospital is privately or religeously run you may not even have to face the choice. However if Obamacare passes we may find that all hospitals will be run as Government institutions. Thus in the end we may find fewer hospitals to run to.