Friday, January 15, 2010

Sweet Martha Cookies

The special election to fill the open Senate seat in Massachusetts has had some pretty great theater. I have no idea if the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, can actually pull off the election, but I do know this: if Brown were to design the ideal candidate to run against, he couldn't have come up with a better foil than Martha Coakley, the standard bearer for the Democrats. She's had a hell of a few weeks. She has managed to:

They love their Democrats up in Massachusetts. Do they love them enough to elect Martha Coakley? Guess we're gonna find out.


my name is Amanda said...

"Explain that Catholics who find certain aspects of the medical profession morally troubling should probably work elsewhere."

Politicians are not supposed to stand up for their constituents? I am missing how this is somehow a faux pas. If that's what you meant.

Mr. D said...

How is telling Catholics who oppose abortion that they should not work in hospitals "standing up for your constituents?" Especially in a place that's as heavily Catholic as Massachusetts?

I know I shouldn't answer a question with a question, but that seemed the easiest way to explain the issue here.

As an aside, I'd say this -- Massachusetts is full of liberal politicians. I am amazed that the local political establishment couldn't find a better candidate than Martha Coakley. She's had about as bad a week of campaigning as I've ever seen.

CousinDan54915 said...

Kennedy. Kennedy. Kennedy. Kerry. Frank. Dukakis.

How about some change we can believe in?

Mr. D said...

No kidding, Dan.

my name is Amanda said...

The idea that people would use religion to deny needed services to citizens who have a legal right to have access to those services is outrageous.

And the fact that poor people use the emergency room as their only means of healthcare, because selfish (expletives) in DC don't believe they deserve healthcare by merit of merely being US citizens makes the opinion that people in the ER should be able to further deny them healthcare even more outrageous.

(Conservatives get up on their high-horse about how they want to protect freedom in this country, and about how our country is so superior to the rest of the world because we are "truly" free, while at the same time, they try to impose their personal religious beliefs on other people. How is that valuing freedom?)

There are plently of opportunities for someone who doesn't support abortion (or other random "objectionable" services) to work in the healthcare industry. (Are people getting abortions in the ER? Her quote was about the ER.) If you are hired to do a job, you are obligated to do that job, and if that job offends your moral sensibility, then you need to look elsewhere - it doesn't mean you are "being denied freedom." It's so ridiculous that the person writing that blip decided to turn it into a speech about denying people freedom, when denying citizens services to which they have a legal right - in an emergency room situation, especially - is denying them freedom in such a way that could cost their lives. That's like saying "Oh, well you're dying, but this procedure is sinful to me, so I'm just going to let you die."

If that's not convincing enough, how about a hypothetical situation in which you or your loved ones (as Catholics) have to go to an emergency room, there are no other ERs close by, and the only doctor on staff is a Jehovah's Witness, and they believe that performing a needed blood transfusion is a sin, and thus they refuse to do perform one. Which is the greater offense? Denying them a job in the ER, or letting you or your loved one die?

That's why "separation of church and state" is so important.

As to the actual question you asked in your comment, yes, I think that supporting people who have a right to legal healthcare procedures is standing up for one's constituents.

Mr. D said...


No, actually it's not about illegal aliens/undocumented workers in emergency rooms. No Catholic I know would object to treating people in that situation.

And you're right -- a person who objected to an emergency abortion, which is only called for in the case of soemthing like pre-eclampsia or an ectopic pregnancy, would need to step out. But that's not the issue here. She's talking about Catholics generally, and by extension Catholic hospitals. And we go back to the matter of federal funding for abortions, which is and remains proscribed in this country.

Of course if Coakley loses the election on Tuesday, it will be moot because her opponent will stop this whole travesty in its tracks and maybe we'll see something different happen.

K-Rod said...

Amanda, your desire to carry water for Coakley is impressive but misguided.

What is it about her that impresses you so much?