Fox Nation, Hoft falsely claim Coakley said "Catholics" shouldn't work "in emergency rooms"
Fox Nation and Gateway Pundit blogger Jim Hoft have seized on comments made by Democratic Massachusetts Senate candidate Martha Coakley during a January 14 radio interview to falsely claim that Coakley said "devout Catholics" should not "work in emergency rooms." In fact, as the context of Coakley's remarks makes clear, she was discussing individuals who would refuse to provide certain emergency medical procedures and treatments -- including emergency contraception -- to patients on the grounds of their religious beliefs, not all "devout Catholics."
Fox Nation, Hoft falsely declared Coakley said Catholics "shouldn't work in the emergency room"
Gateway Pundit, Big Government posts: "Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics 'Probably Shouldn't Work in the Emergency Room.' " In a January 14 Gateway Pundit blog post, Hoft reported that "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." Hoft declared these remarks to be a "game-changer" in the Massachusetts Senate race. Hoft reposted this blog post on BigGovernment.com.
Fox Nation: "Coakley: Catholics Shouldn't Work in the ER." On January 15, Fox Nation linked to Hoft's Gateway Pundit post. From Fox Nation:
In fact, Coakley discussed those who would refuse to provide medical treatment -- including emergency contraception -- on religious grounds
Coakley referred to those who would "deny emergency contraception to a woman who came in who had been raped." In the interview, WBSM's Ken Pittman asked Coakley, who reportedly is Catholic, if she would "pass a health care bill that had conscientious objecter toward certain procedures, including abortion." Coakley stated that she didn't "believe that would be included in the health care bill," and that she would oppose legislation that "say[s] that if people believed that they don't want to provide services that are required under the law and under Roe vs. Wade that they can individually decide to not follow the law." Referencing her Republican opponent, Coakley added: "And let's be clear, because Scott Brown filed an amendment to a bill in Massachusetts that would say that hospital and emergency room personnel could deny emergency contraception to a woman who came in who had been raped." Coakley's statement prompted the following exchange with Pittman:
PITTMAN: Right, if you are a Catholic, and you believe what the Pope teaches, you know, that any form of birth control is a sin. And you don't want to do that, that --
COAKLEY: No, but we have a seperation of church and state here, Ken, let's be clear.
PITTMAN: Yeah, but in the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.
COAKLEY: The law says that people are allowed to have that. And so, then, if you -- you can have religious freedom, you probably shouldn't work in the emergency room.
PITTMAN: Wow. OK, so if you have religious conviction, stay out of the emergency room.
COAKLEY: Well, no, I'm not -- look, you're -- you're the one who brought the question up. I don't believe that the law allows for that, and I know that we accommodate all kinds of differences all the time. I think Roe vs. Wade has made it clear that women have a right to choose, and in Massachusetts, particularly if someone has been the victim of a rape, an assault, and she goes to an emergency room to get contraception, someone else should say, "Oh, no, I don't believe in this, so I'm going to affect your constitutional rights?"
PITTMAN: I agree that you've gotta have some balance there.
Hoft did not include transcript for the portions of the exchange in which Coakley made clear she was discussing those who would deny certain treatments -- including emergency contraception -- to patients because of their religious beliefs.
You really want to punish rape victims so that Catholic employees' feelings don't get hurt.
I find you disgusting.
She NEVER mentioned rape victims until AFTER she made her statement and saw the reaction from Mr. Pittman. Her lack of respect for human life is what I find disgusting.
But they can't have it both ways... If they want to work for a health care system that obtains federal funds then they cannot refuse to participate in medical procedures which are legally permissible because of their religious beliefs. Why would a Jehovah's Witness want to become an ER doctor and refuse to administer blood transfusions to trauma victims? Go into another line of work if tax dollars are in play.
Btw, plural possessive is "their", not "they're"
To keep the patent from getting access to that service, that's why. They can clog the system for that patient long enough that their options are eliminated; for example, if they refuse to either fill the sript for emergency contraception or give the script back, they've succeeded in keeping that patient from getting the contraception they didn't want her to have in the first place. Thus salving their conscience and "saving the babies" (at least until they are born, at which point they no longer give a d@mn)...
I have a question for you. If I end up going to the emergency room as a patient, should I have to worry that options that are legal and normal are being withheld from me because of my doctor's religious beliefs? Should a doctor be allowed to withhold not only treatment, but information from a patient who does not share those beliefs? Why shouldn't that be seen as a failure to provide quality medical care?
Ok, I guess that's more than one question. It's the first one I'd most like an answer to.
Right?
A "devout Catholic" - as opposed to just a Catholic - is by definition someone who objects to abortion and possibly contraception, etc. So to summarize her statement as "devout Catholics shouldn't work in the Emergency Room" is, indeed, a perfectly accurate paraphrase of her full comments.
If I end up in the emergency room, for any reason, I should not have to shop the caregivers there for someone who may or may not have religious beliefs that preclude them from treating me effectively. Perhaps that is an exaggeration, admittedly, and I respect everyone's beliefs, but why they would choose a profession where they may be called into play is a little baffling to me.
She is saying that the believes of the Dems are all that matter, not the law, not a person's faith, only what the dems believe. She is a joke.
If people are going to quote this, they really need to look into where it came from and the meaning of the statement.
The majority of the Founding Fathers practiced what they preached, not like the current liberal leadership with it's Open Government .
The hospital worker is not being forced to do or not to do anything, because the worker is not being forced to work there. If there are practices or duties that may someday conflict with their religious beliefs, then they make the choice to apply for the job, the choice to accept employment, and the choice to comply with their employer's requirements. There are choices all along the way.
What I took away from her horrible wording was different from what is being presented. She did NOT state that catholics shouldn't work in ERs. Her point seemed to be that they should choose not to work in ERs if they would allow their personal religious beliefs to prevent them from providing options that are legal and normal.
That's a reasonable position. If I go to a doctor or am brought to an emergency room I SHOULD NOT have to worry whether the doctor is choosing to limit my options based on HIS belief. A patient may not know all of the options available and refusing to even mention those options would be professional misconduct on the part of the doctor.
1. Do these conscientious devout Catholics refuse to perform or assist with vasectomies?
2. Do these conscientious devout Catholic pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for Viagra?
3. Can vegetarians go to work in restaurants and then refuse to serve meat to customers?
4 Can vegetarians go to work in grocery stores and then refuse to check out meat for customers?
5. Can teetotalers refuse to serve liquor to customers in restaurants or grocery stores?
1. Yes, a Catholic doctor should be allowed to refuse a vasectomy, unless you can tell me that there is a way that someone's life was in immediate danger if they didn't receive one right then; otherwise, i'm sure that the person could walk down the hall and find another doctor perfectly willing to neuter them.
2. The Catholic Church does not say that it's wrong to use viagra; this was just an ignorant question.
3-5. vegetarians and teetotalers should be allowed to open their own no-meat or no-alcohol stores or restaurants; however, catholic hospitals and healthcare centers should not be forced to perform procedures and provide services that violate their morals and religion such as vasectomies, abortion, contraception, etc. Certain lawmakers are trying to violate Catholics religious freedom at private Catholic institutions...
...and concerning the whole rape/incest thing - why does the fact that a woman was raped change the Catholic belief that the "thing" in her womb is still a human?