LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

NRA and Florida gag pediatricians: no more firearm safety advice for parents

EllieTalbot said:
Weren't you just insisting the other day that you don't pay attention American politics?

Oh, wait. Never mind. I forgot for a moment that you never get sick of making as ass out of yourself.

Unimpressed in Uzbekistan,
Ellie
Click to expand...
At least he's found something he's good at.
 
Ishmael said:
Your solutions were perfectly reasonable sigh, unfortunately this is a subject where reason is often left out in the cold.

Just who is being punished by the actions of these physicians? It is a child, a child who is being denied patient care based on the "ownership" of some material thing that the physician finds offensive. If that can be allowed to stand then why not deny care to the child whose parent/guardian/household member owns an automobile, or a swimming pool, or chooses plastic over paper at the grocery checkout. From a purely logical standpoint the denial of service for any of the aforementioned makes considerably more sense, and presents a stronger legal case, than the ownership of a firearm based solely on known statistical evidence. Further, neither the automobile, pool, or plastic bag enjoy any special consideration constitutionally.

The courts have consistently upheld that an individual cannot be discriminated against based on race, cultural affiliation, gender, or religious beliefs. You can march around in a Nazi suit, white robes, black panther garb, or dressed as a Hari Krishna. You can set up a soap box and engage in the most outlandish speech and burn the flag while doing so and no one has the right to deny you those privileges.

But once the second amendment is invoked there is a group that say, "Hold on there, the second amendment is different." Even though the SCOTUS has held it's an individual right these same folks that want to uphold every other amendment, sometimes to the extreme, want to draw a box around the second amendment and declare that is is essentially different, or a constitutional aberration. I find that somewhat contradictory.

The Florida law, one which is being brought forth is several other states, was based on the organized actions of a group of Pediatricians who thought they had found a backdoor method of instituting firearm ownership record keeping as well as enforcing a gun ban. The fact that similar legislation is working its way through the process in other states indicates that it is organized and not just the action of one or two rabidly anti-firearm physicians. As I mentioned before, if these activists can continue to proceed with these actions then there is no bar to their ability to deny treatment, or keep records, of anything that an individual might own based merely on the notion that they, as a group, proscribe said ownership.

Ishmael
Click to expand...

If there were a law proposed that said it's illegal to routinely include information on gun ownership in a medical record -period - then I would support it. I agree the info doesn't belong there. And it seems to me that at the heart of it, that's what this is really all about.

No other law would be necessary. That would cover it. No special insurance breaks for anybody. No language whatsoever (shall or should) about doctor/patient conversations. Just make it illegal to put the info in the medical record without documented need. Roll it into existing medical info privacy laws and let the $10G fine be the deterrent if you want. Or (simpler yet) just amend whatever regulation is out there that already defines what's required and what isn't allowed in a medical record.

But this law is all about making a SPLASH. About getting news coverage. About the current wave of noisy (this time on the right) politicians thinking they're riding a wave of public support and (as usual) taking it too far. If conservatives want to hold on to the gains they made in 2010, they need to stop this foolishness now. But they won't, and the pendulum will swing again, and the politiking goes on and on and on.

We're in a toilet and somebody's pushed the lever. I'm swimming hard against the spin but I don't hold out much hope of any of us staying out of the sewer.
 
sigh said:
If there were a law proposed that said it's illegal to routinely include information on gun ownership in a medical record -period - then I would support it. I agree the info doesn't belong there. And it seems to me that at the heart of it, that's what this is really all about.

No other law would be necessary. That would cover it. No special insurance breaks for anybody. No language whatsoever (shall or should) about doctor/patient conversations. Just make it illegal to put the info in the medical record without documented need. Roll it into existing medical info privacy laws and let the $10G fine be the deterrent if you want. Or (simpler yet) just amend whatever regulation is out there that already defines what's required and what isn't allowed in a medical record.

But this law is all about making a SPLASH. About getting news coverage. About the current wave of noisy (this time on the right) politicians thinking they're riding a wave of public support and (as usual) taking it too far. If conservatives want to hold on to the gains they made in 2010, they need to stop this foolishness now. But they won't, and the pendulum will swing again, and the politiking goes on and on and on.

We're in a toilet and somebody's pushed the lever. I'm swimming hard against the spin but I don't hold out much hope of any of us staying out of the sewer.
Click to expand...

*signs on to sigh's post*
 
Peregrinator said:
I told you I was your alt.
Click to expand...
And I've told you that you need to stop arguing with me all the time so the 2% of the people on this forum who aren't our alts aren't continually deluded into thinking that just because we have conversations we're two separate people. And as you've been drinking, I'll spell it out: that isn't a good thing.
 
Byron In Exile said:
And I've told you that you need to stop arguing with me all the time so the 2% of the people on this forum who aren't our alts aren't continually deluded into thinking that just because we have conversations we're two separate people. And as you've been drinking, I'll spell it out: that isn't a good thing.
Click to expand...

No you didn't.
 
Oh for fuck's sake. Would you two stop it? If you were my kids I'd have you in separate rooms by now.

Or stuffed in the deep freeze.
 
sigh said:
Oh for fuck's sake. Would you two stop it? If you were my kids I'd have you in separate rooms by now.

Or stuffed in the deep freeze.
Click to expand...
Oh, you want Abuse.

That would be Mr. Barnard in room 12, next door.
 
sigh said:
If there were a law proposed that said it's illegal to routinely include information on gun ownership in a medical record -period - then I would support it. I agree the info doesn't belong there. And it seems to me that at the heart of it, that's what this is really all about.

No other law would be necessary. That would cover it. No special insurance breaks for anybody. No language whatsoever (shall or should) about doctor/patient conversations. Just make it illegal to put the info in the medical record without documented need. Roll it into existing medical info privacy laws and let the $10G fine be the deterrent if you want. Or (simpler yet) just amend whatever regulation is out there that already defines what's required and what isn't allowed in a medical record.

But this law is all about making a SPLASH. About getting news coverage. About the current wave of noisy (this time on the right) politicians thinking they're riding a wave of public support and (as usual) taking it too far. If conservatives want to hold on to the gains they made in 2010, they need to stop this foolishness now. But they won't, and the pendulum will swing again, and the politiking goes on and on and on.

We're in a toilet and somebody's pushed the lever. I'm swimming hard against the spin but I don't hold out much hope of any of us staying out of the sewer.
Click to expand...

The legislature didn't run to the national press. The press picked this up as a cause du jour all on their own. And managed to misreport the bill as written on top of it all.

Ishmael
 
CrackerjackHrt said:
Fourth, you rightly note the distinction between shall and should. From looking at the statute, though, I cannot tell whether a physician can be reprimanded for asking questions about firearms. ( http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/0432/Amendment/422568/HTML ) If the physician can be reprimanded, I think that portion of the statute would be deemed unconstitutional, too. My guess is that the word "should" was used to try to prevent the statute from being declared unconstitutional on its face.

Lots of sticky wickets in this statute. It's interesting observing the different ways they are being addressed.
Click to expand...

The "should not" is going to create some issues to be certain. There is an implication that there is a boundary and the opposing factions are going to press to find out exactly where that boundary lies.

I do know what the intent of that was and it was to prevent strident evangelists from subjecting their patients/customers to berating lectures.

Ishmael
 
Ishmael said:
The "should not" is going to create some issues to be certain. There is an implication that there is a boundary and the opposing factions are going to press to find out exactly where that boundary lies.

I do know what the intent of that was and it was to prevent strident evangelists from subjecting their patients/customers to berating lectures.

Ishmael
Click to expand...

Ish, which other "strident evangelists" should the state prevent from "subjecting their patients/customers to berating lectures?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top