Sunday, January 17, 2010

Martha Coakley's Dubious Claim that Catholics other prolifers)want to "turning away" rape victims

Martha Coakley's latest anti-Catholic dubious claim that Catholics seeking religious exemptions to give a woman an abortifacient if they are pregnant desire to "turn away rape victims" may find her defending her claim in a court of law.

The mail piece — sent over by the Brown campaign — shows pictures of women who are supposed to have been raped, one of them in a wheelchair bent over with her head in her hands. It says: “1,736 WOMEN WERE RAPED IN MASSACHUSETTS IN 2008. SCOTT BROWN WANTS HOSPITALS TO TURN THEM ALL AWAY.”

What kind of a dangerous scoundrel would make a claim that Catholics oppose and therefore deny to treat victims of rape?

Proving, he didn't lack the spinal fortitude to get behind litigation for the unjust law to release Catholics from the injustices, and in fact, ultimately voted in FAVOR of forcing Catholics to hand out emergency contraception, Brown held a press conference threatening a civil suit against Coakley for the libelous claims in the flier.

Brown wasn't willing to go to court for Catholics when he knew or should have known that Catholics are not "turning away" rape victims, we're treating the physical and emotional injuries to victims of rape and "IF" the woman has ovulated and requests emergency contraception, which is against our religion to provide, we're permitted in these circumstances to compassionately provide transportation to the hospital a few miles away who completes the treatment of the victim without being forced to recuse and violate our ethics and religious law.

As Coakley’s own Web site says, after Brown’s amendment was rejected, he voted in favor of the bill to require emergency rooms to provide rape victims with emergency contraceptives, and the whole debate seems to be more nuanced than the mailer suggests.

So he knew it was unconstitutional but voted for it.

NOW, he rushes the drama into the campaign and the media to make a zealous pitch about the actual reasons behind his original opposition to the legislation because it is suddenly affecting his own backside.

You see these two candidates?

Unless we "do something" at the level of the processes where we make decisions about "who" to support, the GOP is going to use Scott Brown as a model for the future.

Given the zealous marketing by MCFL of Scott Brown that his support for Roe v. Wade makes him the latest definition of "a pro-life voter", national momentum will cause the unborn to be handed over to more Roe v. Wade supporters - only this time, by the pro-life community.

After this election, we've got to pull it together and change the course.

No comments: