Catholic Medical Association: Coakley Denies Freedom of Conscience, Right to Life
Senatorial Candidate Martha Coakley objected to providing the right of conscience to health care professionals. The CMA responded with outrage.
'Running roughshod over conscience rights is not only wrong in principle; it will harm patients as faithful, ethical health-care providers are driven out of practice.'
PrintWASHINGTON, D.C. (Catholic Online) – On Monday, the Catholic Medical Association (CMA) responded to statements made by Democratic Senatorial candidate Martha Coakley concerning respect for freedom of conscience rights for health care providers. Her comments were made during an interview on the Ken Pittman radio program out of New Bedford, MA on January 14.
Coakley faces a fierce battle for the senatorial seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy against Republican contender Scott Brown, who is now leading in some polls. However, the election is still too close to call.
“In the course of the interview, Martha Coakley demonstrated hostility to conscience rights in general, and to the beliefs of faithful Catholics in particular,” stated John F. Brehany, Ph.D., S.T.L., executive director of the CMA.
Of course, the irony is obvious to any observer. Coakley claims to be a Catholic Christian. Yet, she seems to be one of those whom my good friend and Catholic Online Editor in Chief has called “Anti-Catholic Catholics”. She denies the fundamental human right to life as revealed by the Natural Law, confirmed by medical science, and, taught infallibly by her own Church!
Under the constitutionally protected freedom of conscience clause, workers in health-care environments, whether they are doctors, nurses, even maintenance men, can refuse to offer services, information, or advice to patients regarding abortion contraception, blood transfusions, etc. if the workers are morally opposed to it.
During the program, Pittman brought up a question of whether Coakley would support healthcare legislation that removed such legal protection for the conscience clause.
Pittman stated on his website, “I chose this (question) based on her vitriolic campaign attack on Scott Brown's participation with a bill allowing medical people with religious principles to find another emergency room care provider to administer a pill or service to end the life of an unborn in the womb.”
When asked if she would support federal legislation that protected the conscience rights of health care providers, Coakley replied, “I don’t believe that would be included in the health care bill.”
Moving on she stated that, “I would not pass a bill… to say that people who believe that they do not want to provide services required under the law and under Roe v. Wade that they can individually decide to not follow the law. The answer to that is no.”
Another excerpt from the program follows:
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, let’s be clear.
Ken Pittman: “In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.”
Martha 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.”
According to Dr. Brehany, a faithful Catholic and outstanding medical professional, there are a couple of important things to notice about Coakley’s comments.
“First,” he noted, “Although much attention has been paid to Coakley’s comments about ‘working in the emergency room,’ her comments reveal hostility to the rights of all medical providers regarding any procedure under the law.
“While it is true that focused attacks on conscience rights have centered on abortion and reproductive services, there is nothing to prevent advocacy groups from insisting that providers cooperate with euthanasia, assisted suicide, and any number of other unethical actions. Coakley specifically disagrees with objecting to any services ‘required under the law and Roe v. Wade’.”
“Second,” Brehany commented, “Coakley’s statements reveal a specific hostility to faithful Catholics. While some news stories of the interview have referred to ‘devout Catholics’ in the emergency room, the interviewer actually referenced Catholics who ‘believe what the Pope teaches.’ This is the definition of a real Catholic, not of only a “devout” Catholic.
“Coakley’s dismissal of their faith and rights and is a shocking display of disrespect for members of one religion. Even on legal grounds, it is inadequate, as Matt Bowman of the Alliance defense fund has pointed out here.”
When asked what Democrats would do with a Coakley win in the senatorial election on Tuesday, he stated, “They would take it as an endorsement of Obamacare, and the version of it, if you will, that we see emerging – number one, a huge Federal takeover of healthcare that is arguably unworkable, expensive, flawed and a huge entitlement expansion.
“Number ...
Coakley faces a fierce battle for the senatorial seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy against Republican contender Scott Brown, who is now leading in some polls. However, the election is still too close to call.
“In the course of the interview, Martha Coakley demonstrated hostility to conscience rights in general, and to the beliefs of faithful Catholics in particular,” stated John F. Brehany, Ph.D., S.T.L., executive director of the CMA.
Of course, the irony is obvious to any observer. Coakley claims to be a Catholic Christian. Yet, she seems to be one of those whom my good friend and Catholic Online Editor in Chief has called “Anti-Catholic Catholics”. She denies the fundamental human right to life as revealed by the Natural Law, confirmed by medical science, and, taught infallibly by her own Church!
Under the constitutionally protected freedom of conscience clause, workers in health-care environments, whether they are doctors, nurses, even maintenance men, can refuse to offer services, information, or advice to patients regarding abortion contraception, blood transfusions, etc. if the workers are morally opposed to it.
During the program, Pittman brought up a question of whether Coakley would support healthcare legislation that removed such legal protection for the conscience clause.
Pittman stated on his website, “I chose this (question) based on her vitriolic campaign attack on Scott Brown's participation with a bill allowing medical people with religious principles to find another emergency room care provider to administer a pill or service to end the life of an unborn in the womb.”
When asked if she would support federal legislation that protected the conscience rights of health care providers, Coakley replied, “I don’t believe that would be included in the health care bill.”
Moving on she stated that, “I would not pass a bill… to say that people who believe that they do not want to provide services required under the law and under Roe v. Wade that they can individually decide to not follow the law. The answer to that is no.”
Another excerpt from the program follows:
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, let’s be clear.
Ken Pittman: “In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.”
Martha 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.”
According to Dr. Brehany, a faithful Catholic and outstanding medical professional, there are a couple of important things to notice about Coakley’s comments.
“First,” he noted, “Although much attention has been paid to Coakley’s comments about ‘working in the emergency room,’ her comments reveal hostility to the rights of all medical providers regarding any procedure under the law.
“While it is true that focused attacks on conscience rights have centered on abortion and reproductive services, there is nothing to prevent advocacy groups from insisting that providers cooperate with euthanasia, assisted suicide, and any number of other unethical actions. Coakley specifically disagrees with objecting to any services ‘required under the law and Roe v. Wade’.”
“Second,” Brehany commented, “Coakley’s statements reveal a specific hostility to faithful Catholics. While some news stories of the interview have referred to ‘devout Catholics’ in the emergency room, the interviewer actually referenced Catholics who ‘believe what the Pope teaches.’ This is the definition of a real Catholic, not of only a “devout” Catholic.
“Coakley’s dismissal of their faith and rights and is a shocking display of disrespect for members of one religion. Even on legal grounds, it is inadequate, as Matt Bowman of the Alliance defense fund has pointed out here.”
When asked what Democrats would do with a Coakley win in the senatorial election on Tuesday, he stated, “They would take it as an endorsement of Obamacare, and the version of it, if you will, that we see emerging – number one, a huge Federal takeover of healthcare that is arguably unworkable, expensive, flawed and a huge entitlement expansion.
“Number ...
Rate This Article
1 - 10 of 20 Comments
Leave a Comment
More Politics & Policy News
- 'Journalism has been criminalized' Juan Williams declares
- Special Report from the Virginia Republican Nominating Convention: A Time To Choose - Life
- Lois Learner pleads the 5th. Was she the crook behind it or was she following orders from higher up?
- Sick of deception! Democrat threatens IRS with appointment of special prosecutor
- FOURTH OBAMA SCANDAL: Did HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius solicit funds for nonprofit group?
- Carney still insists nobody told Obama about IRS investigation
- State Department insider warns more whistle-blowers to come on Benghazi scandal
- Hillary better be prepared, House Oversight and Government Reform chairman Darrell Issa says
- E.W. Jackson Wins Nomination as Republican Candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia
Featured News
- Fr. Paul Schenck: Finding Living Faith on Catechetical Sunday
- The Movie Yellow: Incest as 'Normal' and Cassavates's Slides Into the World of Woes
- The Chicago School Teachers Strike Reveals the Need For School Choice
- The Sexual Barbarians and the Dissolution of Culture
- The Happy Priest Challenges Us to Ask: Who is Jesus to Me?
- Michael Coren on Canadian Public Schools: Teachers, leave those kids alone
- We Cannot Ignore Our Consciences: Cardinal Dolan On Religious Liberty
- In the Face of Danger, Successor of Peter Travels to Lebanon as a Messenger of Peace
- Reflections on the Dignity and Vocation of Women: Who or What?
Most Popular
There's the problem! Americans are out of touch with scientific consensus on climate change Read More
Editorial: Is the Scandal Ridden Obama Administration Becoming a House of Cards? Read More
Sex In Uniform: Why the Increase in Sexual Assaults in the Military? Read More
Bill Donohue, Catholic League, Disclose Fight with the IRS, Demonstrate Courage Read More
Culture of Corruption: Why Obama's misuse of Marines is wrong Read More
Daily Readings
Reading 1, Sirach 4:11-19
Wisdom brings up her own children and cares for those who seek ... Read More
Psalm, Psalms 119:165, 168, 171, 172, 174, 175
Great peace for those who love your Law; no stumbling-blocks ... Read More
Gospel, Mark 9:38-40
John said to him, 'Master, we saw someone who is not one of us ... Read More
Saint of the Day
St. Rita
May 22: St. Rita was born at Spoleto, Italy in 1381. At an early age, ... Read More
Latest Videos
BREAKING: British Soldier Beheaded On UK Street 2013 View Video
Mass singing in St. Peter, Vatican View Video
Miss Crosswhite, the Oklahoma teacher that dared to pray View Video
Marketplace
Behind the Mass
Father Shamon penetrates the depth of meaning underlying the Mass. ... Read More
Catholic Inspirational Gift Idea. St Jude. Recovery Necklace Read More
Paul Primavera and others
Peace and Im not arguing with you but....
God Bless but we dont know what Ted Kennedy wrote the Pope.
He did write to him before he died.
You and I both know that even on your death bed you can ask forgiveness.
After this it is up to the Lord to decide on where we go.
You're welcome, Bulbajer.
If I publicly defy Holy Mother Church as Ted Kennedy did on abortion and gay marriage, then I wouldn't deserve and shouldn't get a Catholic funeral either.
For example, even if I am a great philantrophist and donate huges sums to the poor, that wouldn't excuse me from the sin of living with a woman outside the bounds of Holy Matrimony. If I insist on doing so, then regardless of my generosity to the poor and regardless of my baptism as a Catholic, when I die, I don't deserve and should not receive a Catholic funeral. I will have lived in this hypothetical example a life of fornication or adultery (depending on what my initial marital state was), and publicly so. There are consequences for sin.
Now if Teddy had repented, then of course we must forgive - 7 times 70 in fact. But Teddy NEVER repented (and don't go into this "he did it in Confession" - public sin demands public confession and public repentance).
Our Bishops have got to start taking action to bring apostate Catholic politicians into repentance for the sake of their eternal souls and for the sake of the Faithful. That means publicly barring them from reception of Holy Communion. The idea isn't to HURT the person, but to (1) bring them to repentance and (2) protect the Faithful from scandal.
That principle isn't paleo-consevrativism. It's Biblical at I point out at my blogsite:
http://commentarius-ioannis.blogspot.com/
Paul Primavera, thank you for replying. Check out the Cathoic Online article "On 'A Catholic Funeral for Ted Kennedy?'"
Ugh, paleoconservatism. But I suppose we all have our different viewpoints.
Guys,
I soberly explain my position on apostate Catholic politicians here:
http://commentarius-ioannis.blogspot.com/2010/01/some-thoughts.html
Everything I wrote is cross-referenced right back to supporting Scripture. It's too long to publish here, so please go to that link. Thanks!
Bulbajer,
Perhaps this response won't get published. Censorship is a double-edged sword.
What happened to Ananias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit in Acts chapter 5?
What did St. Paul do to Hymenaeus and Alexander in 1st Timothy 1:19-20 for blaspheming?
What did St. John write about Jezebel at the Church in Thyatira in Revelation chapter 2?
It's about time our Bishops take lessons from these examples in dealing with baby-murdering Catholic politicians.
And yes, I find liberalism completely and totally disgusting.
I'm not too enamored by conservativism either.
Vote for the US Constitution Party - its platform is closest to Church teaching.
P.S., Brown is pro-abortion, too, but he's less bad than Coakley. The primary difference is that since he's a Protestant Reformed, he has an excuse. Coakley as a Roman Catholic is without excuse and that's my point. She is Boston's Jezebel, the same as in Revelation chapter 2, and Cardinal Sean had better start recognizing that for the sake of Holy Mother Church.
SCOTT BROWN WON!!!!!!!!!!!!
Score one for the good guys!!!!!!
Alvy Singer, I don't vote for the party. It just so happen the Republican stands for what I believed in.
If the Democrat in my area is pro-life I will vote for him too. But I have Sen. Durbin, an announced Catholic who is pro-abortion. He will never get my vote.
Beside, it was Cli9nton who signed the MOST FAVORED NATION status to China that made our greedy manufacturers to ran to China, not Bush. If we don't get back the manufacturing job, we will never regain our economic status. Again, that was not Bush, that was Clinton.
Brown wins the election according to CNN!!
Alvy Singer, I agree.
Paul Primavera, let's quit the attacks on Cardinal O'Malley. He did the right thing, and it seems like more than liberals agree with him. And, you have a right to your own opinion, but the "godless atheist liberalism" thing is getting really tiring. Go out and meet some liberals, I'm sure you won't find them all disgusting.
Well, keep your fingers crossed, fellow pro-life Massachusetts residents...
Abortion is not healthcare, and as a Catholic and a taxpayer I choose not to pay for your abortion. Thank you Mr. Brown!
What an absurd postulation by Alvy Singer- that not passing Health Care as proposed by either the Senate or the House will destroy the lives of millions! Lack of health insurance will not destroy the lives of millions, but lack of health care might. The real figures of uninsureds who want but can not afford or qualify for health insurance is not the 40 million bandied about, but more like 12 million. And since hospitals can not turn away patients because of lack of insurance, these folks are not without health care! In addition, most physicians will accept payments over time for services.
Do we need to improve our present system of health care-Yes! Will either the House or the Senate bill accomplish this-ABSOLUTLEY NOT!
The facts show that the financial crisis we are experiencing is primarily due to the mortgage crisis where so many people are defaulting on mortgages. The majority of whom under normal lending practices would not have been granted a mortgage to begin with due to their financial situations. However, banks were forced and pressured by the Federal government to give mortgages to these unqualified borrowers. The pressure came from the Democrats in charge, particularly Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
It is a wild guess that “millions of lives” would be destroyed by not having Obamacare; it is a fact that millions of innocent lives have been destroyed by the pro-abortion people.
How does one invoke the name of Jesus to pass health care legislation and vote for a pro-abortion candidate, but blithely accept the fact that babies will continue to die from abortion? How does one think Jesus would react to the murder of an innocent baby?
I believe we all know the answer to that!