Martha Coakley on the Ken Pittman Show

If a patient wants a legal service or procedure then where's the beef? Anyway..Coakley did well.

Sands it's the hypocrisy many of us are upset with. She has been attacking brown for days over an amendment to a 2005 bill he signed. & The Senates Healthcare Bill she says she will vote for contains the same language, she says she opposes. The senate bill has even more strict language allowing for times when Hospital workers can refuse to perform abortions & administer morning after pills. Personally I am for the woman on these matters but others feel otherwise for religious & moral reasons & that needs to be respected.

So she is going to decide where people can work based on religion?....If I put the stones to her and knocked her up,she would keep the baby

This woman has to be the nastiest, worse candidate to ever run for office. So in imbecile world, she turns the Constituition on its head by telling her "belief" that religious bigotry can be used to decide who may or may not work? Really? You Coakley supporter as some disgusting people. Good Lord, Mass have a little self respect and send this nutjob packing back to whatever cave she crawled out from.

I could go on for days with what's wrong with this Free will & all. But the Suffolk polls just came in & Scott Brown is up by 4 pts. Do you need some one to come over & pick your Jaw up off the floor Sands?

This one is going viral, Ken. Expect calls from Hannity, et. al.

THANK YOU for eliciting the comments from Martha Coakley about emergency rooms. All Scott Brown was trying to do was allow a "conscience" clause for Catholic hospitals not to administer contraceptive abortion pills. She falsely accused him of not voting for the legislation which ultimately he did. You did an amazing job w/her and it is going to have national ramifications. Praise God for your guts. Sincerely, Margaret Rogers

There are so many things wrong with her answer. She (and a lot of other people in this country) have no idea what religious freedom is. Sadly what our founders wrote on the subject (in great detail) is no longer taught in school. Separation of Church and State as Jefferson wrote was in the context of the federal government staying out of the business of religion.....not the other way around. Apparenlty Martha believes Christians shouldn't work in medicine, government, etc. Our laws are a reflection of our morality, of which religion is one of the pillars, not the law giving us our morality.

My wife is a Registered Nurse in at least 9 States. She has been an Emergency Room Nurse for nearly 30 years. She is also a convert to the Catholic Faith. These secularists (socialists) are wanting to take away our religious liberties not much different from the Socialist revolution in Portugal in 1910. Wake up America before it is too late! We still have power in the ballot box!

I am catholic and work in an ER...should i quit Martha?

Honestly, Coakley can't get it right. I wonder if she screws her clothes on.

Yeah Sands looks like Martha did extremely well. If by well you mean making Ken an internet sensation & possibly sinking her own campaign for U S Senate all in one 12 minute span then yes I'd say quite well...

Would Ms. Coakley have all 600 Catholic Hospitals (built on the backs, sweat and pennies of poor Catholics and nuns) shut their doors? or Turn themselves over to the State? Or better yet, Just re-write Christian doctrine to suit the State... Oh, I know, lets fire all the thousands of Philipino nurses, they obviously shouldn't be working in health care being Papists and all.

13% of hospitals in the U.S. are Catholic based. Should they close?

If you've been raped, no one is performing an abortion on you in an ER. Period. You cannot get pregnant in milliseconds (as in egg fertilizes, spends days traveling down the tube, then implants). Ergo, the only thing that can happen is emergency oral contraception. That has to be taken within 72 hours, not minutes. It is not an emergency procedure. As to Catholic hospitals, indeed I've read in the media over the past few years that they DO want to take over Catholic hospitals and decide what their policies are. Freedom of religion is going to rapidly be replaced with freedom from religion. As a former Catholic, I am pro choice when it comes to emergency contraception, but I support a facility's right to make these choices for themselves. As to Coakley, she's an epic tool of the far left. Nothing more than a talking point mouthpiece of no substance.

Re: Comment #6: Michelle Malkin has picked up on this and put it on her website and on Facebook. It _is_ going viral in the conservative community.

You folk have a one-time opportunity to take back your state. Vote for Scott Brown and reject this Coakley character. I've never seen such a contrast of intelligence (Brown) vs. ignorance (Coakley) and I've seen some pretty dumb politicians in my lifetime.

I sincerely hope that the people of Mass. actually THINK before voting for a dem this time. Prove to the country you have some common sense.

I have no idea how anyone in Mass., who has any common sense and moral character, could go to the poles and actually vote to be represented by this woman and her views. Mass, you can be the state that stops this nonsense and helps us get our country back. think about it.....!! Seriously...!

The government really has no place demanding any particular medical facility perform any particular procedure... or as would be more "fair" that they perform every procedure possible. I mean, if there were any water behind the "we want to reduce costs" claims, they'd be pushing to ban non-immediate emergency room procedures such as these across the board, anyway. By the way, who is dumb enough to head to hospital in town with a big crucifix on the side for an abortion, anyway? Is that level of cogitation a prerequisite for supporting Coakley?

Michelle Malkin -- Coakley’s worst enemy: Her tongue http://michellemalkin.com/2010/01/15/coakleys-worst-enemy-her-tongue/

If your religion prevents you from performing your duties then you should not seek jobs that are in conflict. If you do not believe that people should get blood transfusions you should not work in an ER. Pacifists should not work in an ICBM Silo. If your job requires that you must violate your religious beliefs then don't take that job.

Nowhere in the constitution is the concept of separation of church and state. That concept was mentioned in a letter by Thomas Jefferson. No one should be forced to perform an act that goes against their personal religious beliefs. I'm sure there are others in the room that would be happy to perform that particular act.

Haiti provides us with a mighty fine example of the dangers of taking advice in the areas of sex and reproduction from a celibate male in ornately embroidered garments.

ER's do not perform abortions, this is a nutty conversation. You do realize don't you, that the majority of Doctors do have religious beliefs and many surgeons pray before performing a procedure.

Coakley fits the Libocrat mold to a "T". She is every bit as vile as Reid and Pelosi. I hope all Democrats in MASS will finally open their eyes to this madness and begin for us the journey to take back this country from the monsters who are in control.

Sounds like hate speech to me. The freedom of religion is part of the Bill of Rights. The Attorney General of Massachusetts should look into this. People of certain religions may not be barred from employment or intimidated into not seeking employment. In a state like Massachusetts that believes in civil liberties, I'm sure the Attorney General will come down hard on her.

The AP is now reporting that Obama will be coming to Mass to campaign for the abortion-lover who doesn't want religious folks working in hospitals. This could be a risky move. Brown has the support of 65% of unenrolled voters. Just the sight of Obama could energize them and get them out in big numbers for Scott. I think Coakley's comments on Ken's show yesterday is worth 1/2 to 1% for Brown. This video and text of her stupid comment is going nuclear around the world. If it's a close Brown win, Scott can thank Ken for pushing him over the top. Still no news story in the S-T about the truly incredible poll. The Jackass has noted it on his blog, but no one pays much attention to the Jackass. Ken should keep playing Coakley's terrorist and hospital comments right through Tuesday. There will be many Catholics and others of faith who may be leaning Coakley. Her comment may bring them back to Brown.

Comment #22, the problem with your religious view is that yours is being used to reshape America from the religious views that the majority of Americans maintain. Catholic work has always been to help the poor, to care for the sick. If you were speaking of Porn stars I would concur with you readily. My wife was very much involved with what happened at Fort Hood a few weeks ago. I am so proud of her for the great compassion she has for those whe cares for. Her Catholic faith is a testament to her heroic strength.

and the dems make fun of Sarah Palin? this lady is a joke! i'm offended she lost my vote! great job Pittman for asking tough questions! you are the only one too, you might have drove the last nail in the coffin...now brown owes you a favor..lol just kidding

Does she need a teleprompter too... Real strong under pressure, first she could not get the marbles out of her mouth and then she offends the Catholics faith. Can't wait for this weekend when she will need to speak again.

I don't know about you, but on every job I've ever had, I've had to do the whole job. I couldn't decide not to do parts of the job I objected to. If the best care is to give a rape victim a contraceptive, you do your job. Scott Brown is not going to represent Massachusetts. If he is elected, he will do what he is told by the leadership, just like the other 40 senators. BTW, the 41st vote against the Health Care Bill means nothing. He's talking about the 41st vote against allowing a vote on the Bill. When the Republicans were in power, they were railing against the filibuster as unconstitutional. How times and beliefs have changed?

spot on - thanks

What I respect about her is she doesn't try to hide how awful and elitist she is. She seriously has no idea we elect our leaders, and they aren't royalty entitled to their positions

Scott Brown merely supported the right of a private hospital to decide their policies - and of health care practitioners to have conscientious objection to a given therapy. In other words, he'd like to keep government out of the practice of medicine. That said, in the scenario under discussion, said physician would ask another non-Catholic doctor to provide the patient with emergency contraception (or even care for her completely.) I am a doctor who has worked in Catholic hospitals, and that is how it is done. Excellent interview, Ken!

Comment #32, consider being in an institution for 26 years when a new administration comes in with a change for America? The change is not what people expected nor wanted. But the far left uses the opportunity to force unwanted change down everyones throats. I will not retire simply because godless ones intend to socialize America with godless action.

Ok so.... Religious ignorance should force victims of rape to have the children of their rapist!??! and / or further force inconvenience on the person who was raped? This does NOT sound like America. Why not get another Doctor?! What's the issue here?? Clearly contraception, rape, and emergency treatment are medical issues and should be dealt with in the safest means and quickest time possible. ridiculous right.

TO Sean --- The "ISSUE" is this little thing called FREE WILL. No one is saying the victim can't get an abortion. We are saying a Dr. or nurse should most decidedly not be forced to take a life if that what their conscience dictates. See unlike you Secular Progressives we to the right of center don't just CHERRY PICK the human rights we'll advocate for. It's called a consistent message.

Sean #37, do you not understand what they are saying, if a doctor has a moral or religious objection to a particular procedure then the should have the right to find another doctor to treat the patient. Are you so steeped in left-wing loony-Ville hate that you cant read? This has been said multiple times in the previous 36 comments! And while you bring up compassion lets go down that road, should the victim of rape or incest be put to death for being a victim of a crime? I assume since you being so compassionate, would say "absolutely not!" and yet that is precisely what the notion of aborting a pregnancy that resulted from rape would be. Punishing the victim for his or her fathers crimes.

Sean #37 and Martha both do not understand the issue: Martha clearly characterizes abortions as "services that are REQUIRED under the law and under Roe v. Wade" -- so rather than merely supporting freedom of choice for women but denying it for medical professionals, she thinks abortions are mandatory.

So Martha what you are saying is that Catholic hospitals shouldn't hire Catholic workers? If your statement wasn't so sad it would be funny. This ignorant woman should not represent anyone in DC. Vote for Brown and end this madness!

Wow!! This has made it across the Atlantic. Good interview. Is the land of the free about to deny religious freedom? Isn't that why the Mayflower crossed the ocean to retain religious freedom?

I believe there's going to be a landmark change of politics come Tuesday.

Martha C. ...ignorance knows no limits with your comments about Catholic workers.. can you spell discrimination law suit????

From the West Coast we see some glimmer of hope that the Land of Paul Revere may yet come to its senses and elect someone who holds freedom of choice as a sacred trust, including such freedom for Catholics and all others who object to big Government running our lives and our privately-operated hospitals. We need such an example here in California. While it's true that the Supreme Court held a woman has the "right" to choose abortion, it violates countless other rights if she can demand that every private doctor and every private hospital must perform that killing without regard to the health-care provider's right to choose. Leftists who shout loudest about the right to kill fetuses always roll out the bogeymen of incest and rape, but those are a tiny fraction of the millions of abortions performed in this country -- virtually all are merely killings of convenience. To force Catholic and other private hospital workers to give up their conscientious objection to such killings would be like imposing a military draft on all 18-year olds --- something no leftist would support in this day and age. That's why we have long recognized the right to sincere "conscientious objection" when it comes to the military. Let those who demand abortion go to hospitals where doctors “choose” to do such killings. How can forcing private doctors against their free will and conscience be a part of any American policy? If we believe in "choice" as a founding principle of our American freedoms, then even Catholics and others of faith should be allowed equal and opposite rights of choice. If women cannot be forced to deliver unwanted fetuses, then how can private doctors and hospital workers be forced to kill those fetuses? Our basic freedom of choice is not just for leftists.

i don't believe the comment about whether or not this man with the most disgusting vocabular should have been posted.he commented on whether or not he got her pregnant.we are not here to voice such inmoral comments.that style doesn't leave us in any different catagory than the pilitican who you are throwing stones at.two wrongs don't make a right.we need to be christ minded and use words not of hate and disgust and our voices will be heard a lot faster.so please underdog before you make any more comments like that one ask what would jesus say.