Do you live in a cave? How about Paul Ryan your last vice presidential contender and the 65 other Republican Congressmen who Co-sponsered his bill?
It is a mainstream position of the Republican Party. No Abortions. No Exceptions, including rape, incest or life of the mother.
Troglodytes like you do live in caves and might not get out much or read the news, but you are a regular here where this subject has been discussed multiple times, I’m going to go with you knew better and are just a liar.
Cite? Preferably with the quote from the bill that proves your assertion?
Please now you are just going to play stupid…
Note it grants fetuses person hood upon conception and provides no exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother.
Your attitude is moronic. What do you expect - that it grant personhood to a fetus, but if it was conceived in a rape or incestual relation then no, it is not a person? Or if life of the mother is in danger, then it becomes a non-person? What kind of stupidity would that be?
Yes, it grants personhood to a fetus. No, it would not prevent abortion in cases where the choice is fetus’s life vs. mother’s life. But the fetus would still be a person, even in that case.
According to these Nanny state fucks, someone with kids who keeps loaded guns by all of the doors would be a complete moron.
http://eddieeagle.nra.org/information-for-parents.aspx
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/04/26/how-to-store-guns-safely-in-your-home/
I’m not seeing a difference in the recommendations here, except that those in the category of gun advocates are tolerable, those not clearly in that category are nanny state gun confiscators.
Gun advocates on this board are complete imbeciles.
You can save on taxes too.
I think there is an option to break down the age group to 15-19 and 20-24.
I think that pediatricians should make parents aware of the precautions they could take to minimize the risk of their kid accidentally shooting themselves (or anyone else), INCLUDING firearm safety education for their kids (frankly I think that in a country with 110 guns for every 100 people, every parent should have this discussion with their kids just as they should have a discussion about safe sex and drugs/alcohol). I think they should expend much more effort to make parents aware of the dangers of accidental drowning or other things that are orders of magnitude more likely than a kid shooting themselves, this has not been my experience.
I think refusing to provide medical services unless the patient answers questions about guns is unethical. I don’t know what ahppened in the case that precipitated this law but one side seems to be assuming that the patient got belligerent or something without providing any evidence to suport this theory.
I think that pharmacists have as much of a right to refuse to act against their conscience as doctors. They can get fired for it but they shouldn’t lose their license over it.
I’d like to see a cite for hte “life of the mother” part of that.
So should they NOT, as their official organizational position, say “you should not have guns, but if you do…”? For ethical reasons (ie, it’s not their place)? Or for practical reasons (it’s just going to piss people off, who will then not keep reading)?
I don’t know if there is IS any evidence that can be presented… maybe it’s just that this conversation:
Doctor: “OK, young parents, before you take your baby home, we’d like to ask you some questions to help you make your house safe… do you own guns?”
Parents: “That’s honestly none of your business”
D: “You MUST answer the question”
P: “That’s honestly none of your business”
D: “Then this visit is over”
seems vastly less likely than this:
D:“OK, young parents, before you take your baby home, we’d like to ask you some questions to help you make your house safe… do you own guns?”
P:“How DARE you question the second amendment you liberal pussy!!!”
D: “Please control your attitude”
P: (storms out, and then later tells people about how the doctor wouldn’t continue the exam unless the gun question was answered)
But I admit that that’s just speculation on my part. Some people are insensitive assholes, and they can certainly include doctors.
Read the bill. Do you see an exception for life of the mother? Do I need to prove a negative for you?
My attitude is fetal personhood bills are moronic. Since you’re going to make assumptions about what I think I’m going to do the same for you:
You believe it is OK to choose the life of one person over the life of another in medical decisions, therefore the law should not criminalize this behavior even though it is very clearly not legal by our current law. Doctors can not kill one person to save another. The proposed fetal personhood law did not change that. therefore if a doctor killed the unborn child to save the mother he would have broken the law.
In any case this is a Fukking Facistist Florida Firearm Fanatics Thread. If people like yourself and Bricker want to discuss pharmacists and abortions why don’t you make a Stupid Fukkin Abortion Fanatic Thread instead?
Because the issue I am bringing up is the inconsistency in your position. I don’t favor the Florida law myself – as much as I support gun rights, I still think the correct model is that doctors can ask what they please and patients are free to find other doctors if they feel put-upon.
But that’s entirely consistent with my view that pharmacists can refuse to serve up Plan B and patients are free to find other pharmacists.
So what I am highlighting with the pharmacist discussion is your willingness to accept that the state can force a pharmacist to push Plan B but that the sate can’t constrain a doc who demands disarmament as a condition of medical care.
I’m sure we all admire your knack for phrasing the question in such a unbiased and non-partisan manner. Like “push” Plan B and “demand disarmament”.
Honestly only by a mindset that reads anything other than saying guns are great is “anti-gun.”
Mind you I do think that the people who wrote the policy statement would, if polled as individuals, take positions for gun control that you would object to.
No it is not the only explanation. Honestly we are well past the rinse repeat point here.
But the thread is about censoring doctors from even asking about guns.
I do not agree with every position the AAP has taken. But this law takes the position that the state should take it upon itself to censor physicians from expressing any opinion on this subject that their policy wonks have opined on since the politicians do not agree with such wonk opinions. That is nuts.
Excluding the middle. Again, I can prefer a teen stay abstinent and also advise condoms and OCP use if they do have sex and discuss those and other options to protect from disease and pregnancy. BTW, I am not anti-sex when I state that the safest teen option is to not have sex. I can also have that discussion without being a sex expert.
Would it? I neither an expert on the gun data nor on the drowning data but I do recall that demographic groups with lessresidential pool exposure have higher drowning rates in public pools. Odds are though that the concept of advising removing the in-ground pool from the premises did not come up. Agreed that the policy guideline could have reasonably advised against getting a pool despite, like they do for guns … and ATVs. (It is not just guns.)
You do need to remember that this is not a single committee making all policy guidelines with consistent approaches. Different committees get different members who may think divergently about how to manage risks.
More incomprehension on your part. I never said that people whose guns are important to them don’t use guns “for the ordinary practical necessities of life”. Nor do I advocate that people who value their guns should necessarily get rid of them, even if they have young children in the house.
I just made the perfectly unremarkable point that guns are much more likely than cars or pools to be casually owned by people who don’t consider them important in their lives (because guns are small and (comparatively) cheap). Consequently, parents are statistically more likely to consider the option of getting rid of their guns than of getting rid of their cars.
So yes, it makes perfect sense for pediatricians to point out to gun-owning parents of young children that the best way to protect their children from accidental injury by the guns in their house is not to have guns in their house. Duh.
If the parents want to keep their guns and undertake responsible childproofing measures rather than getting rid of their guns, that’s fine by me, as I said. But I think the butthurt attitude of hysterical-paranoid gun owners who fiercely resent even the most mild and rational observation that not keeping guns in the home could statistically speaking have some safety benefits is both delusional and contemptible.
It is certainly not based in the reality of the hysterical-paranoid segment of the gun-owning population, which is clearly all that you’re familiar with (and which admittedly is by far the most visible and vocal segment).
But those people are hardly the voice of sanity and common sense when it comes to conversations about gun ownership.
Add in, if such refusal would result in the woman being unable to have the procedure, and you have a reasonable question IMHO. One that has nothing to do with the Florida censorship law.
It reads as you quoted
Now being the wise lawmakers of Florida they then go on to say it is only a proscutable offense if something happens because they did that … specifically, IF a minor got weapon because of an adult failing to secure a weapon as mandated and that minor then shows it off in a public place or is rude or careless with it. Those are the harms and they say no harm no foul. Florida lawmakers apparently beieve that the law should be that it is mandated to stop at a stop sign but only a prosecutable crime to not stop if there is an accident as a result of not stopping. Still they do believe in mandating stopping.
Your first part is prohibited by the law.
The refusal to provide medical services based on not answering a question is already covered as unethical and disallowed under extant medical guidelines. A physician who did that if nothing else would have his/her malpractice carrier all over their ass. It is called patient abandonment (as discussed earlier in this thread) and if something bad medically happened to the patient that could in any way be pegged to that disruption in care it means huge liability exposure.
One alleged episode of this already prohibited behavior was the impetus to this law, with no confirmation that it occurred and a reasonable suspiscion that it did not occur as presented by the censorship promotors. We docs all have had these rules regarding how to dismiss patients and under what guidelines drilled into us.
And you really must be playing dumb because I know you aint this stupid.
Indeed there is nothing inconsistent with your holding both positions … and there is nothing inconsistent with someone holding both the positions of that pharmacists should be required to provide the care that they are on duty to provide if failure to do so means that the patient will not be able to reasonably get that care and that doctors should be able to inquire about gun ownership and discuss gun safety.
Because the two issues HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. This discussion has NOTHING to do with “a doc who demands disarmament as a condition of medical care” … NO ONE is defending that IF IT EVER HAPPENED and it is already against established guideline. A pharmacist refusing to care for a patient who without their care will realistically be unable to have the service HAS NOTHING IN COMMON with a doctor asking about guns.