Martha Coakley Attacks Pro-Life Catholics: "Don't Work in an Emergency Room"

  • Thread starter Thread starter juliee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

juliee

Guest
Boston, MA – Massachusetts Senate candidate Martha Coakley is coming under fire today for comments showing her attacking the conscience rights of pro-life Catholics. In a Thursday interview, Coakley is asked whether doctors and nurses working in a hospital emergency room have religious freedom.

lifenews.com/state4728.html
 
No surprise regarding her views, but it is slightly unbelievable that the Attorney General could fail to censor herself:

“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.”

Incredible! People who actually uphold their faith don’t belong in emergency rooms? As if this inhibits their ability to do their job. What is scary is that this seems to be a common type of thinking, not only among mainstream America, where blatant anti-Catholicism is nothing new, but from liberal “Catholics”.

Pray for this election. I’m not a partisan voter, and I’m not happy with either party. But until the Democratic party wakes up from the ultra-left relativist mindset, we need a pro-life majority in our Congress. This stuff is not acceptable, it’s quite dangerous to our country’s future.
 
I think she may have meant it more towards denying care that the hospital would otherwise be willing to provide.
(Abortions, contraception, morning-after pills, ect.)

She probably feels that the Catholic doctors and other health care providers’ morals and faith should not “trump” those of the patient, in a non-Catholic setting.
 
Having worked in a hospital, all I can see from comments like this is giving the public the impression that religious beliefs do not belong in emergency rooms. I dealt with a lot of patients from the ER and there were no problems. The occasional Jehovah’s Witness would ask for no blood transfusions. What? They are wrong about following their religious beliefs? This is politics that is biased to support the current, massive campaign to get Religion out of all areas of public life that hurts the agenda of the Culture of Death.

Speaking generally, abortion does not fall under the term ‘heath care.’ In most cases, the patient chooses to have it done or is coerced by boyfriend/husband/relative.

Peace,
Ed
 
Quite frankly, those who provide abortion, contraception, and morning after pills don’t belong working in an emergency room. Emergency rooms are supposed to be all about saving lives, not taking them.

… and that goes for non-Catholic hospitals as well.

~~ the phoenix
 
edwest2 said:
Having worked in a hospital, all I can see from comments like this is giving the public the impression that religious beliefs do not belong in emergency rooms. I dealt with a lot of patients from the ER and there were no problems. The occasional Jehovah’s Witness would ask for no blood transfusions. What? They are wrong about following their religious beliefs? This is politics that is biased to support the current, massive campaign to get Religion out of all areas of public life that hurts the agenda of the Culture of Death.

Speaking generally, abortion does not fall under the term ‘heath care.’ In most cases, the patient chooses to have it done or is coerced by boyfriend/husband/relative.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
If a JW doctor feels that blood transfusions are morally wrong, is he or she justified in denying a patient blood?

Pills are often given in the case of rape, right? Whether or not this causes an abortion is a topic for another thread. As is whether or not this practice should be allowed.
If this is something the rape vicim wishes and the hospital has adopted standards that allow for this… Just like, I hope, the JW’s views on morality wouldn’t affect the level of care the patient recieves, if the patient’s beliefs didn’t align with the JW.

Not knowing the Senate candidate, I don’t know if she was just attacking the Church or if she reasoning along this line. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.
 
TheWatcher said:
If a JW doctor feels that blood transfusions are morally wrong, is he or she justified in denying a patient blood?

Pills are often given in the case of rape, right? Whether or not this causes an abortion is a topic for another thread. As is whether or not this practice should be allowed.
If this is something the rape vicim wishes and the hospital has adopted standards that allow for this… Just like, I hope, the JW’s views on morality wouldn’t affect the level of care the patient recieves, if the patient’s beliefs didn’t align with the JW.

Not knowing the Senate candidate, I don’t know if she was just attacking the Church or if she reasoning along this line. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...
Its a double edged sword really, on one hand we should have the right to not do something against our beliefs, but on the other a pro-life Dr should not take up a job at an abortion clinic and complain when they get fired.
 
Discussions involving political candidates must use the Politics forum. Thank you.

THREAD CLOSED
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top