Let's Be Clear, Coakley Can't Vote for Health Care

Via Twitter
Martha Coakley was interviewed on the Ken Pitman radio show earlier today. As usual, Coakley proves when she opens her mouth she is sure to put a foot in it. Here is the transcript, audio portion below as well:

Ken Pittman: Would you pass a conscientious objection to certain procedures including abortion?

Martha Coakley: Uh I don't believe that would be included in the health care bill. I don't understand exactly what the question is (cross talk) I would not pass a bill as Scott Brown filed the amendment to say that people believed that they don't want to provide services that are required under the law and under Roe vs Wade that they can individually decide to not follow the law, the answer to that question is no.

Ken Pittman: Ok

Martha Coakley: and let's be clear because Scott Brown filed an amendment to a bill in Massachusetts that would say that hospital and emergency room personnel could deny emergency contraception to a woman who came in and had been raped.

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: (…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.

Here's the rub though, as Professor Jacobson pointed out this provision for conscientious objection is in the bill Coakley says she supports:

Here is the language in section 1302(a)(3) of the bill (at page 125) passed by the Senate on December 24 (emphasis mine), which Coakley says she supports:

PROVIDER CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS.—No individual health care provider or health care facility may be discriminated against because of a willingness or an unwillingness, if doing so is contrary to the religious or moral beliefs of the provider or facility, to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

If elected, will Coakley demand this section be removed before she votes for the bill or can we all pretty much rest assured Martha doesn't give two hoots about conscientious objections to health care unless it might get her a vote?  This woman is really unprepared and hasn't bothered to research the issue she is raising against Brown.  I would guess she wouldn't be able to answer any specific questions about portions of the health care bill.  Moreover, this is a truly desperate candidate who can't find a charge to level against her opponent.  Instead she chooses to throw anything hoping something sticks.

No wonder the most committed liberals are finding it difficult to vote for her.  Case in point, from the liberal group Blue Mass Yes it Sucks, Yes You Have to Vote for Coakley.  Wow, I won't blame Democrats for blaming a portion of this loss on this terrible, terrible candidate.