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.'
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.
Rate This Article
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
- 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?