Scott Brown - Where does he really stand on the issues?

This post sounds misinformed anguille.

You are taking the ammendment to the bill he passed way out of context.

The ammendment he was trying to get added in, unsucessfully, was to allow Catholic Hospitals to deny abortion requests. The bill stated that if a rape victim came into a catholic hospital and requested the morning after pill/abortion then the HOSPITAL would have to pay to transport the patient to another facility where a doctor could do it without violating their religious faith and freedom.

This bill both protected the first ammendment religious freedom of catholic hospitals and protected the rights of a woman who requests an abortion. It put the expense on the hospital for transportation to a facility that could provide the medicine/procedure without violating an individual doctors religious freedom.

Knowing is half the battle ;).

Sorry i kinda said it 2 times :razz:

It throws another roadblock up in front of a rape victim who needs medical care and timely acess to the 48 hour pill. If a Catholic or any other person finds it impossible to reconcile their religious beliefs with the doctor's oath to do no harm and with the responsibility of a medical person to provide the best care possible for a patient, then that person should find themselves another profession. Rape victims come to hopitals for medical care. they have just been raped. They do not come to hospitals to see their own religious beliefs overridden by someone who happens to be an a more powerful position that they are. They have already been raped. They don't need to be raped again in another sense.
To abuse a position of power inorder to deny a rape victim access to the 48 hour pill is unconscionable and inhumane.
Any medical person who does that should be stripped of their license to practice medicine. Anyone who can't respect the religious beliefs of their future patients should be disqualified from seeking to be a nurse or a doctor.

In the state this legislation was proposed in the farthest drive to a hospital from anywhere is 30 minutes. I think protecting people's first ammendment rights is worth a 30 min ambulence ride...heck even an hour.
Some would argue that an abortion is a direct violation of said oath as it "murders" the unborn baby.
They would still get all the other treatments but would have to go elsewhere for the pill, at the expense of the hospital not the patient. Calling the protecting of a doctors first ammendment rights rape is at best disingeneous.
It appears you don't believe in the very principle our country was founded on, religious freedom and the freedom to practice your religion without persecution for it.

I feel you are being very unreasonable with your position. That is my opinion of our back and forth here.
"protecting people's first ammendment rights is worth a 30 min ambulence ride...heck even an hour."
As a potential rape victim I DO NOT think I will want to put my urgent medical needs aside to fulfill the perverse desire of someone who is not experiencing a medical emergency to impose their queer religious ideas on me and put my health at further risk. Nor do I think I should be obliged to.

I feel that your's and Mr Brown's opinion that I should do so highly unreasonable. You forget that rape victims have religious rights too. Don't diminish them just because they are a victim of a rapist.

Let me ask you, PP, should you come to the emergency room bleeding and in need of a transfusion, would you agree to travel an hour to another hospital should the doctors in the first hospital explain to you that as Jehovah's Witnesses they don't think a blood tramfusion would be what God wanted for you?
 
He's the kind of Republican that can get elected in a liberal state, which means the cons of the blogosphere secretly despise him.
Brown won by a small margin. the same amount of voters that would have filled all the seats in Fenway Park, Foxboro Stadium and the Boston Garden. We all know how fickle sports fans can be. Brown won on timing and not much else.

He won by a larger margin than Obama over McCain and I hear people say McCain got trounced by obama all the time (I said people not you ;)).
McCain got trounced. Coakley got boinked.
 
It throws another roadblock up in front of a rape victim who needs medical care and timely acess to the 48 hour pill. If a Catholic or any other person finds it impossible to reconcile their religious beliefs with the doctor's oath to do no harm and with the responsibility of a medical person to provide the best care possible for a patient, then that person should find themselves another profession. Rape victims come to hopitals for medical care. they have just been raped. They do not come to hospitals to see their own religious beliefs overridden by someone who happens to be an a more powerful position that they are. They have already been raped. They don't need to be raped again in another sense.
To abuse a position of power inorder to deny a rape victim access to the 48 hour pill is unconscionable and inhumane.
Any medical person who does that should be stripped of their license to practice medicine. Anyone who can't respect the religious beliefs of their future patients should be disqualified from seeking to be a nurse or a doctor.

In the state this legislation was proposed in the farthest drive to a hospital from anywhere is 30 minutes. I think protecting people's first ammendment rights is worth a 30 min ambulence ride...heck even an hour.
Some would argue that an abortion is a direct violation of said oath as it "murders" the unborn baby.
They would still get all the other treatments but would have to go elsewhere for the pill, at the expense of the hospital not the patient. Calling the protecting of a doctors first ammendment rights rape is at best disingeneous.
It appears you don't believe in the very principle our country was founded on, religious freedom and the freedom to practice your religion without persecution for it.

I feel you are being very unreasonable with your position. That is my opinion of our back and forth here.
"protecting people's first ammendment rights is worth a 30 min ambulence ride...heck even an hour."
As a potential rape victim I DO NOT think I will want to put my urgent medical needs aside to fulfill the perverse desire of someone who is not experiencing a medical emergency to impose their queer religious ideas on me and put my health at further risk. Nor do I think I should be obliged to.

I feel that your's and Mr Brown's opinion that I should do so highly unreasonable. You forget that rape victims have religious rights too. Don't diminish them just because they are a victim of a rapist.

Let me ask you, PP, should you come to the emergency room bleeding and in need of a transfusion, would you agree to travel an hour to another hospital should the doctors in the first hospital explain to you that as Jehovah's Witnesses they don't think a blood tramfusion would be what God wanted for you?

I feel you are throwing a red herring at me here and wont play that game nicely.

I'm glad to know you dont support the constitution or our founding principles, kudos. I'm not even religious but i think it is wrong to force someone to break their religion of their is a viable alternative. You sound like the type who says "Bury all them muslim terrrorists in pigskin sheets"
Hypocritical much. So you should just "Rape" A doctors religious beliefs. I'm glad your hate all christians/catholics, good to know hatemonger.

Nice red herring fishboy. Couldn't handle the fact that i posted the truth about brown and smited what you said so you had to act like this. I feel bad your not capable of honest debate.

That being said making me wait 30 min for a transfusion would kill me, making a rape victim wait 30 min for the abortion pill means she still gets to abort the rape child. Don't be such a ninnyhammer...it makes you look daft.


Ah that felt different...haven't acted up for a while. Now read my sig line before responding :lol:

you can have the last word I'm done with you in this discussion...i proved my point very well several posts ago.

I think he's against ditching a mistress in 20 feet of water.
Hmmmmmm ... you'd hope ... but ... if she was raped and the emergency room personal decided their religion was more important than hers and refused to give her the 48 hour pill, Brown would be A-Okay with that.

I wonder what Brown's first scandal will be?

This post sounds misinformed anguille.

You are taking the ammendment to the bill he passed way out of context.

The ammendment he was trying to get added in, unsucessfully, was to allow Catholic Hospitals to deny abortion requests. The bill stated that if a rape victim came into a catholic hospital and requested the morning after pill/abortion then the HOSPITAL would have to pay to transport the patient to another facility where a doctor could do it without violating their religious faith and freedom.

This bill both protected the first ammendment religious freedom of catholic hospitals and protected the rights of a woman who requests an abortion. It put the expense on the hospital for transportation to a facility that could provide the medicine/procedure without violating an individual doctors religious freedom.

Knowing is half the battle ;).

Sorry i kinda said it 2 times :razz:
 
Last edited:
PP you OWN the red herring stand, mister. Thank dog the Catholic Church is beginning to lose it's grip on our fair state.

Sorry you were flummoxed by my question. I guess I gotcha there.

And you still haven't explained how it's in any way Constitutional or ethical to make a rape victim wait for anything or travel to another medical facility just because she's a different religion that the doctor.

I don't know if there are women in your life that you care about. But it seems that if one was raped, you'd be more concerned that the doctor consult a Bible rather than use his medical education while treating her. That's just plain sick!!
 
PP you OWN the red herring stand, mister. Thank dog the Catholic Church is beginning to lose it's grip on our fair state.

Sorry you were flummoxed by my question. I guess I gotcha there.

And you still haven't explained how it's in any way Constitutional or ethical to make a rape victim wait for anything or travel to another medical facility just because she's a different religion that the doctor.

I don't know if there are women in your life that you care about. But it seems that if one was raped, you'd be more concerned that the doctor consult a Bible rather than use his medical education while treating her. That's just plain sick!!

:cuckoo:
 
PP you OWN the red herring stand, mister. Thank dog the Catholic Church is beginning to lose it's grip on our fair state.

Sorry you were flummoxed by my question. I guess I gotcha there.

And you still haven't explained how it's in any way Constitutional or ethical to make a rape victim wait for anything or travel to another medical facility just because she's a different religion that the doctor.

I don't know if there are women in your life that you care about. But it seems that if one was raped, you'd be more concerned that the doctor consult a Bible rather than use his medical education while treating her. That's just plain sick!!

:cuckoo:

Amazing how callous people can be to rape victims all in the name of their own religion. It's as if when a rape victim is raped, they want to see her stripped of her religious rights as well.
Anyone who stands in the way of a rape victim's legal right to the 48 hour pill is responsible for her possible future pregnancy along with the rapist.

An old and close friend of mine was very brutally raped over a a period of several hours. She was finally rescued and taken for treatment. At that time the 48 hour pill was not yet developed but she was given a procedure that did about the same thing because fortunately for her, she lives in a country where no one would think of imposing religious beliefs on her at such a horrible time. She did get an STD and suffered a breakdown shortly after.
I can't imagine why anyone would want to further enable a rapist in impregnating his victim. I can't imagine why a Christian organization would support such a thing. But the Catholic Church has been known to sponsor some terrible things. In light of the pedophile priest scandals, it's not such a shocker that they would be this perverse to rape victims.

The 48 hour pill is not an abortion pill. It prevents pregnancy during the 48 hour period between when an egg is fertilized and when it attached to the wall of the womb and starts to become an embryo. It cannot terminate an already existing pregnancy.
 
Last edited:
PP you OWN the red herring stand, mister. Thank dog the Catholic Church is beginning to lose it's grip on our fair state.

Sorry you were flummoxed by my question. I guess I gotcha there.

And you still haven't explained how it's in any way Constitutional or ethical to make a rape victim wait for anything or travel to another medical facility just because she's a different religion that the doctor.

I don't know if there are women in your life that you care about. But it seems that if one was raped, you'd be more concerned that the doctor consult a Bible rather than use his medical education while treating her. That's just plain sick!!

:cuckoo:

Amazing how callous people can be to rape victims all in the name of their own religion. It's as if when a rape victim is raped, they want to see her stripped of her religious rights as well.
Anyone who stands in the way of a rape victim's legal right to the 48 hour pill is responsible for her possible future pregnancy along with the rapist.

An old and close friend of mine was very brutally raped over a a period of several hours. She was finally rescued and taken for treatment. At that time the 48 hour pill was not yet developed but she was given a procedure that did about the same thing because fortunately for her, she lives in a country where no one would think of imposing religious beliefs on her at such a horrible time. She did get an STD and suffered a breakdown shortly after.
I can't imagine why anyone would want to further enable a rapist in impregnating his victim. I can't imagine why a Christian organization would support such a thing. But the Catholic Church has been known to sponsor some terrible things. In light of the pedophile priest scandals, it's not such a shocker that they would be this perverse to rape victims.

The 48 hour pill is not an abortion pill. It prevents pregnancy during the 48 hour period between when an egg is fertilized and when it attached to the wall of the womb and starts to become an embryo. It cannot terminate an already existing pregnancy.

Some more information about me I did not include in that PM to you.

I am non-religious and have never been to a church service that wasn't a funeral or a wedding. My parents are agnostic and raised me without religion.

Just some 411 because your claim of me being callous in the name of religion is false.

I love the constitution and the freedoms it guarantees the people and the power it restricts from the government...hence my supporting brown's position on this specific issue.
 
The Kennedys certainly abused a whole lot of women in their day no? Some have even been accused of rape in the past. I find it pretty shameful that these Liberal kooks were perfectly willing to give a murderous drunkard 40yrs to succeed or fail but are not even willing to give Scott Brown 40 days. Just give the guy as much a chance as you gave the last guy who held the seat. Sounds pretty fair no?
 

Amazing how callous people can be to rape victims all in the name of their own religion. It's as if when a rape victim is raped, they want to see her stripped of her religious rights as well.
Anyone who stands in the way of a rape victim's legal right to the 48 hour pill is responsible for her possible future pregnancy along with the rapist.

An old and close friend of mine was very brutally raped over a a period of several hours. She was finally rescued and taken for treatment. At that time the 48 hour pill was not yet developed but she was given a procedure that did about the same thing because fortunately for her, she lives in a country where no one would think of imposing religious beliefs on her at such a horrible time. She did get an STD and suffered a breakdown shortly after.
I can't imagine why anyone would want to further enable a rapist in impregnating his victim. I can't imagine why a Christian organization would support such a thing. But the Catholic Church has been known to sponsor some terrible things. In light of the pedophile priest scandals, it's not such a shocker that they would be this perverse to rape victims.

The 48 hour pill is not an abortion pill. It prevents pregnancy during the 48 hour period between when an egg is fertilized and when it attached to the wall of the womb and starts to become an embryo. It cannot terminate an already existing pregnancy.

Some more information about me I did not include in that PM to you.

I am non-religious and have never been to a church service that wasn't a funeral or a wedding. My parents are agnostic and raised me without religion.

Just some 411 because your claim of me being callous in the name of religion is false.

I love the constitution and the freedoms it guarantees the people and the power it restricts from the government...hence my supporting brown's position on this specific issue.
The Constitution protects us from governance by the Vatican and other foreign powers . The Vatican should have no say in granting exceptions to medical personal from performing their duty to treat their patients. But apparently it still does. Rape victims should be free from the Vatican's interference with our freedoms and with patient's rights.
 
Last edited:
The Kennedys certainly abused a whole lot of women in their day no? Some have even been accused of rape in the past. I find it pretty shameful that these Liberal kooks were perfectly willing to give a murderous drunkard 40yrs to succeed or fail but are not even willing to give Scott Brown 40 days. Just give the guy as much a chance as you gave the last guy who held the seat. Sounds pretty fair no?

Do you think Scott Brown will change his policy on patient's rights?
 
Amazing how callous people can be to rape victims all in the name of their own religion. It's as if when a rape victim is raped, they want to see her stripped of her religious rights as well.
Anyone who stands in the way of a rape victim's legal right to the 48 hour pill is responsible for her possible future pregnancy along with the rapist.

An old and close friend of mine was very brutally raped over a a period of several hours. She was finally rescued and taken for treatment. At that time the 48 hour pill was not yet developed but she was given a procedure that did about the same thing because fortunately for her, she lives in a country where no one would think of imposing religious beliefs on her at such a horrible time. She did get an STD and suffered a breakdown shortly after.
I can't imagine why anyone would want to further enable a rapist in impregnating his victim. I can't imagine why a Christian organization would support such a thing. But the Catholic Church has been known to sponsor some terrible things. In light of the pedophile priest scandals, it's not such a shocker that they would be this perverse to rape victims.

The 48 hour pill is not an abortion pill. It prevents pregnancy during the 48 hour period between when an egg is fertilized and when it attached to the wall of the womb and starts to become an embryo. It cannot terminate an already existing pregnancy.

Some more information about me I did not include in that PM to you.

I am non-religious and have never been to a church service that wasn't a funeral or a wedding. My parents are agnostic and raised me without religion.

Just some 411 because your claim of me being callous in the name of religion is false.

I love the constitution and the freedoms it guarantees the people and the power it restricts from the government...hence my supporting brown's position on this specific issue.
The Constitution protects us from governance by the Vatican and other foreign powers . The Vatican should have no say in granting exceptions to medical personal from performing their duty to treat their patients. But apparently it still does. Rape victims should be free from the Vatican's interference with our freedoms and with patient's rights.

:eusa_eh: The vatican? :eusa_eh: If you read the proposed ammenment to our MA health legislation the vatican was never mentioned.

I believe Brown was trying to protect the religious rights of the doctors at private catholic hospitals in a manner that maintained the availability of treatment for the victim at no extra expense to the victim.

Catholics believe any type of pregnacy termination is murder, is a sin, and would get them sent to hell for doing it. By forcing doctors to do this, as a government, we are violating the separation of church and state.
 
Some more information about me I did not include in that PM to you.

I am non-religious and have never been to a church service that wasn't a funeral or a wedding. My parents are agnostic and raised me without religion.

Just some 411 because your claim of me being callous in the name of religion is false.

I love the constitution and the freedoms it guarantees the people and the power it restricts from the government...hence my supporting brown's position on this specific issue.
The Constitution protects us from governance by the Vatican and other foreign powers . The Vatican should have no say in granting exceptions to medical personal from performing their duty to treat their patients. But apparently it still does. Rape victims should be free from the Vatican's interference with our freedoms and with patient's rights.

:eusa_eh: The vatican? :eusa_eh: If you read the proposed ammenment to our MA health legislation the vatican was never mentioned.

I believe Brown was trying to protect the religious rights of the doctors at private catholic hospitals in a manner that maintained the availability of treatment for the victim at no extra expense to the victim.

Catholics believe any type of pregnacy termination is murder, is a sin, and would get them sent to hell for doing it. By forcing doctors to do this, as a government, we are violating the separation of church and state.
That is bullmal that there is no extra expense to the victim. It can mean enormous expense to the victim to the extent that they may miss the 48 hour deadline to prevent pregnancy. Then they will be faced with the choice to abort or not.

Any Catholic who has been brainwashed enough by the Vatican to think they won't get into heaven if they give out birth control to a rape victim should should find a profession that won't require them to make a choice between going to heaven and giving timely medical care to their patients.

If there is a hell, I'm sure there is a special place in it for rapists and those who would enable them in impregnating rape victims by abusing their positions of power to deny the rape victims the 48 hour pill. Clerics and polititians who blackmail their followers into doing this sort of thing should end up in this circle of hell also.

I can't imagine why anyone would think that abusing a rape victim will get them into heaven. How selfish and perverse!!!

Catholic hospitals that engage in this sort of behavior will eventually lose their accreditation and be taken over by private health organisations that provide better health care.

Brown is a dick who was looking for a way to please a special interest group at the expense of human and civil rights.
 
The Constitution protects us from governance by the Vatican and other foreign powers . The Vatican should have no say in granting exceptions to medical personal from performing their duty to treat their patients. But apparently it still does. Rape victims should be free from the Vatican's interference with our freedoms and with patient's rights.

:eusa_eh: The vatican? :eusa_eh: If you read the proposed ammenment to our MA health legislation the vatican was never mentioned.

I believe Brown was trying to protect the religious rights of the doctors at private catholic hospitals in a manner that maintained the availability of treatment for the victim at no extra expense to the victim.

Catholics believe any type of pregnacy termination is murder, is a sin, and would get them sent to hell for doing it. By forcing doctors to do this, as a government, we are violating the separation of church and state.
That is bullmal that there is no extra expense to the victim. It can mean enormous expense to the victim to the extent that they may miss the 48 hour deadline to prevent pregnancy. Then they will be faced with the choice to abort or not.

Any Catholic who has been brainwashed enough by the Vatican to think they won't get into heaven if they give out birth control to a rape victim should should find a profession that won't require them to make a choice between going to heaven and giving timely medical care to their patients.

If there is a hell, I'm sure there is a special place in it for rapists and those who would enable them in impregnating rape victims by abusing their positions of power to deny the rape victims the 48 hour pill. Clerics and polititians who blackmail their followers into doing this sort of thing should end up in this circle of hell also.

I can't imagine why anyone would think that abusing a rape victim will get them into heaven. How selfish and perverse!!!

Catholic hospitals that engage in this sort of behavior will eventually lose their accreditation and be taken over by private health organisations that provide better health care.

Brown is a dick who was looking for a way to please a special interest group at the expense of human and civil rights.

Like I said neither one of us will budge on this. The stuff i put in Pink I find (trying to think of the right word) exagerated.

Considering in MA there is a hospital every few miles, your claim about them missing the deadline would be false. Unless the victim waited until 47 hours after the rape and went to one of the religious hospitals.

You call it "Abusing a rape victim" however the pill is still provided, just by a different doctor or hospital...this claim is was what brought my initial red-herring comment before.

Ok ok...i promise you can have the last say this time since i got re-involved again ;).
 
Last edited:
:eusa_eh: The vatican? :eusa_eh: If you read the proposed ammenment to our MA health legislation the vatican was never mentioned.

I believe Brown was trying to protect the religious rights of the doctors at private catholic hospitals in a manner that maintained the availability of treatment for the victim at no extra expense to the victim.

Catholics believe any type of pregnacy termination is murder, is a sin, and would get them sent to hell for doing it. By forcing doctors to do this, as a government, we are violating the separation of church and state.
That is bullmal that there is no extra expense to the victim. It can mean enormous expense to the victim to the extent that they may miss the 48 hour deadline to prevent pregnancy. Then they will be faced with the choice to abort or not.

Any Catholic who has been brainwashed enough by the Vatican to think they won't get into heaven if they give out birth control to a rape victim should should find a profession that won't require them to make a choice between going to heaven and giving timely medical care to their patients.

If there is a hell, I'm sure there is a special place in it for rapists and those who would enable them in impregnating rape victims by abusing their positions of power to deny the rape victims the 48 hour pill. Clerics and polititians who blackmail their followers into doing this sort of thing should end up in this circle of hell also.

I can't imagine why anyone would think that abusing a rape victim will get them into heaven. How selfish and perverse!!!

Catholic hospitals that engage in this sort of behavior will eventually lose their accreditation and be taken over by private health organisations that provide better health care.

Brown is a dick who was looking for a way to please a special interest group at the expense of human and civil rights.

Like I said neither one of us will budge on this. The stuff i put in Pink I find (trying to think of the right word) exagerated.

Considering in MA there is a hospital every few miles, your claim about them missing the deadline would be false. Unless the victim waited until 47 hours after the rape and went to one of the religious hospitals.

You call it "Abusing a rape victim" however the pill is still provided, just by a different doctor or hospital...this claim is was what brought my initial red-herring comment before.

Ok ok...i promise you can have the last say this time since i got re-involved again ;).
Among your own exaggerations is claiming a hospital is to be found every few miles in MA or even easily accessible in many parts of the state. Even if this false statement were true, it's no reason a rape patient should be denied medical care.

My friend who was raped was kept captive by the rapist for several hours. This happens to other rape victims as well. Some rape victims fall unconscious or are afraid to tell anyone at first. Emergency room waiting time in MA hospitals is often very very long. Many factors could contribute making a last minute chance to take the 48 hour pill imperative.

But you seem to think that the practitioner's chances of getting into heaven outweigh all this.

I hope you never need an emergency blood transfusion from a doctor who is a Jehovah's Witness.
 

Forum List

Back
Top