Check out this story from the Boston Herald.
Excerpt:
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 separation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.
Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.
Martha Coakley: 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.
At another point in the interview she says, “if people believe that they don’t want to provide services that are required under the law and under Roe v. Wade, that they can individually decide to not follow the law, the answer is no.”
Listen to the audio clip:
The full interview is here on Ken Pittman’s site.
I find her willingness to squash the religious beliefs of individuals with her secular leftist support for abortion very disturbing. Why should she have the right to force her anti-Christian view on me? And why does she label herself as a Roman Catholic? She trying to use the power of the state to force pro-lifers to commit murder. How is that consistent with Roman Catholicism? (Or evangelical Protestant Christianity?)
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Well, it’s not compatible, but that hasn’t stopped them it the least. Shows that to these people, faith is something like a smorgasbord, and anything uncomfortable, scary, inflexible or not politically expedient can be jettisoned under the “Well, just because I’m a {insert religion here] doesn’t mean I have to ascribe to everything they say”, or something similar.
Well, actually, you do have to follow it. See, I have this crazy notion that being a member of a church implies that you follow what it says. Which is why people who actually believe the Bible, for example, are fleeing the ECUSA in droves.
That being said, it seems Sen. Coakley is just another one of the fake Catholics who, in the deepest part of her heart, professes to be so because it works for her politically, not because she loves the church or believes it’s true. As a fundamentalist evangelical I have strong theological issues with the RCC but I at least admire a man or woman who is RCC because they believe it’s true and submit themselves to its authority, rather than someone like Mrs. Coakley or any number of the Kennedys.
As for the “you can have your religious freedom, just not in your workplace” bit, isn’t it interesting that this never applies to those with politically correct beliefs? Those who believe things contrary to the current fashion of the times, however—especially with regard to homosexuality—are those who shouldn’t work in emergency rooms. Or public schools, Brookstone, One Life to Live, any number of public universities, and the list goes on. And more and more frequently, it is those who name the name of Jesus who come under such persecution.
And then in October, the hate crimes bill was signed. Expect more things like this to happen, with stiffer and swifter penalties—but don’t forget to look up, beloved, for our redemption draws nigh.
Weeping for this country, and praying for my endurance to the end,
David
LikeLike
Thanks for this comment. I could not agree with you more.
LikeLike
So… what is actually the problem here?
The state isn’t ‘forcing its views on you’ unless you are actually a health professional. If you are a health professional (or a trainee one, like me), then I don’t see the problem of the state telling you exactly what it expects of you.
The appropriate matrix of values and professional duties will (probably should) entail providing to patients/clients/whatever the services they are entitled to under the law – and not just the bits of the law you are happy with. Of course, in the real world we don’t want to force people to make those sorts of choices and so we allow nurses and doctors to conscientiously object, but this is a professional courtesy, not a right – it is only acceptable if the patient is not impeded in receiving what they have a right to.
The ‘right’ the state has to do this is because it has a duty to ensure the rights of people living there aren’t violated. There’s also a matter of reciprocity. If doctors/nurses/pharmacists or others are willing to bend over backwards to ensure their own consciences aren’t offended, they should also do the same to allow their patients to act according to their own moral beliefs. I might not like the idea of gay sex, premarital sex or morning after pills, but people have rights to regarding these that should be respected.
To my knowledge, the US recognises a ‘right’ to abortion under Roe v. Wade under right to privacy grounds or whatever. Maybe that’s completely wrong and there shouldn’t be any ‘right’ to abortion for any reason. This should be pressed in the courts and the forum, not the hospital.
LikeLike
I think Coakley may not be the most devout catholic, but I believe she is a stronger believer in freedom and a democratic system than you two are, or maybe she’s just very far-sighted. What happens if your daughter/wife/mother is injured in a car accident while driving alone and is taken to a hospital and a muslim doctor is allowed to refuse to work/operate on her because she doesn’t have a male escort? Would you support that? Because it is within his muslim/sharia rights to refuse to do so.
Too many horrible things have already been done in the name of god…there is a very good reason to keep religious beliefs seperate from state, it provides for a very sound, stable government.
LikeLike