Friday, January 15, 2010

Coakley: No Catholics in the ER

Coakley quoted on a radio program (Red Mass Group, via Gabe at AoSHQ):
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 seperation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.

Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

Martha Coakley: (...stammering) 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.

Coakley's polling numbers continue to degrade as it becomes increasingly obvious what Obamacare entails.

Two things are happening here -

(1) A person's negative right to keep the government from interfering in one's seeking of emergency contraception (or other controversial procedure or drug) is magically morphing into a positive right to have that service provided by somebody else, who would then have a corresponding duty to provide it;

(2) When managing the health of Americans is a paramount concern of the state, every aspect of life is subject to government control -- religion, income, occupation, sexuality, food, habits, hobbies, etc.... Everything that makes your life yours becomes a potential object of political discussion.

Wikipedia says about 44% of Massachusetts residents are Catholic. While surely not all of them agree with Rome's teachings on birth control (or other subjects in Humanae Vitae), I doubt many would be willing to force their fellow Catholics to perform an act against their conscience.


Anonymous said...

Joe - do you seriously believe this?

- Matt

JoeCollins said...

The negative/positive rights analysis is at least a century old, and I think even progressive intellectuals would basically agree. Ever heard of FDR's unimplemented Second Bill of Rights?

Coakley's direct quote about religious freedom follows logically from this analysis, as do many statements from Dem politicians about abortion coverage in subsidized insurance. By their reasoning, women don't just have the right to seek abortion/EC/Birth Control, but hc providers have an obligation to provide those things to them, and the public has the obligation to pay.

As to state control - there will be a hellava lot more taxes, subsidies, bans, regulation, mandates, and monitoring of absolutely everything. Additionally, this will become extremely politicized as favored constituencies and economic rent-seekers influence policy makers to ban/subsidize/tax/mandate their political preferences.

And that, I believe 100%.