Florida Man

[Suranis]

By "the outrage industry" I'm talking about taking something that may or may bot have something problematic and then adding something to it to get people screaming and posing it all over. Its very much a left wing thing as well as a right wing thing.

A while back I used to debunk stuff people shared from Atheist blogs on facebook, which was rife with outright lies about what religious people said and what documents said, and boy howdy the attacks on me got really personal. People just want to believe the worst if it confirms their beliefs.

Ergo this "THIS BILL WILL STOP EMERGENCY CARE!!!" nonsense.

[neeneko]

So, in other words, more made up fuel for the Outrage industry.

This gets into the problem of the need for specialized knowledge and trust networks for interpretation.

I tried reading the bill, but lack the domain knowledge to really understand it. I came away confused and found both interpretations plausible since, while I saw the specific targets the bill is aimed at, it also seemed like it did not really carve out exemptions for emergency care. Not knowing how things 'default', how it interacts with other laws, etc... mean people like me can't really trust our own intuition and depend on more experienced parties to frame it.

So we have people saying it could be applied to emergency care, and people saying it could not. We blame the outrage industry, but i can not help but suspect that bills are intentionally crafted to be unclear so that proponents and opponents can make it say whatever they want.

I kinda wish there was a rule that every bill must have a laymen's FAQ, and that courts would be required to adhere to it BEFORE the specific text of the bill.

[Suranis]

I haven't read the bill myself, but ya that's a very good point. Information cant stop misinformation but it can certainly give people ammo for arguing against misinformation.

I remember people outside the senate screaming about how the evil Obama had capitulated to the Repubs again with Sequestration, and Harry Reid himself came out and told them all what was actually in the Bill, and they were like "oh."

[Patagoniagirl]

By "the outrage industry" I'm talking about taking something that may or may bot have something problematic and then adding something to it to get people screaming and posing it all over. Its very much a left wing thing as well as a right wing thing.

A while back I used to debunk stuff people shared from Atheist blogs on facebook, which was rife with outright lies about what religious people said and what documents said, and boy howdy the attacks on me got really personal. People just want to believe the worst if it confirms their beliefs.

Ergo this "THIS BILL WILL STOP EMERGENCY CARE!!!" nonsense.

It wasnt because you were trying to debunk. It was the attacking language you used often used in trying to do so.

[Maybenaut]

So, in other words, more made up fuel for the Outrage industry.

This gets into the problem of the need for specialized knowledge and trust networks for interpretation.

I tried reading the bill, but lack the domain knowledge to really understand it. I came away confused and found both interpretations plausible since, while I saw the specific targets the bill is aimed at, it also seemed like it did not really carve out exemptions for emergency care. Not knowing how things 'default', how it interacts with other laws, etc... mean people like me can't really trust our own intuition and depend on more experienced parties to frame it.

So we have people saying it could be applied to emergency care, and people saying it could not. We blame the outrage industry, but i can not help but suspect that bills are intentionally crafted to be unclear so that proponents and opponents can make it say whatever they want.

I kinda wish there was a rule that every bill must have a laymen's FAQ, and that courts would be required to adhere to it BEFORE the specific text of the bill.

Here’s what the bill actually says about medical care:

1014.06 Parental consent for health care services.—

(1) Except as otherwise provided by law, a health care practitioner, as defined in s. 456.001, or an individual employed by such health care practitioner may not provide or solicit or arrange to provide health care services or prescribe medicinal drugs to a minor child without first obtaining written parental consent.

(2) Except as otherwise provided by law or a court order, a provider, as defined in s. 408.803, may not allow a medical procedure to be performed on a minor child in its facility without first obtaining written parental consent.

(3) This section does not apply to an abortion, which is governed by chapter 390.

(4) This section does not apply to services provided by a clinical laboratory, unless the services are delivered through a direct encounter with the minor at the clinical laboratory facility. For purposes of this subsection, the term "clinical laboratory" has the same meaning as provided in s. 483.803.

(5) A health care practitioner or other person who violates this section is subject to disciplinary action pursuant to s. 408.813 or s. 456.072, as applicable, and commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

The words “except as otherwise provided by law” are doing a lot of work, but they probably also provide a lot of cover. I don’t know what the Florida law says about doctors performing emergency medicine, but I imagine that there’s some provision somewhere that says that they can do whatever is necessary to keep somebody from bleeding to death.

[Suranis]

It wasnt because you were trying to debunk. It was the attacking language you used often used in trying to do so.

I wish I could blame it so simply. No, I was actually fairly neutral when debunking things. It was simply "That's not true. Here what the thing actually says *Quote* *link*"

At which point I got blamed for everything from the Inquisition to Sex trafficing, and not a single person dealt with the fact that the outrage they were screaming about wasn't actually true.

Believe it or not, I've gotten pretty bitter over debunking in the last few years. I guess my faith in Humanity has been eroded.

[Maybenaut]

After a little more digging, I think the exception covers emergencies. Here’s what Florida law says about treating minors without parental consent:

F.S. 743.064 Emergency care or treatment of minors

The absence of parental consent notwithstanding, a physician licensed under chapter 458 or an osteopathic physician licensed under chapter 459 may render emergency medical care or treatment to any minor who has been injured in an accident or who is suffering from an acute illness, disease, or condition if, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, delay in initiation or provision of emergency medical care or treatment would endanger the health or physical well-being of the minor, and provided such emergency medical care or treatment is administered in a hospital licensed by the state under chapter 395 or in a college health service. Emergency medical care or treatment may also be rendered in the prehospital setting by paramedics, emergency medical technicians, and other emergency medical services personnel, provided such care is rendered consistent with the provisions of chapter 401.

[neonzx]

So what is the purpose of this bill? It looks like a solution in search of a problem.

Is the intent to target transgender minors, perhaps?

[Suranis]

Now THAT is the real question. And what was the law on this in FLorida before the bill passed?

[neonzx]

Now THAT is the real question. And what was the law on this in FLorida before the bill passed?

Exactly what you would assume. Parental consent for non-emergency/elective care. (that includes abortions)

I have no idea what this bill was trying to fix..

[Chilidog]

Or maybe to target parents who are illegal immigrants

[Maybenaut]

So what is the purpose of this bill? It looks like a solution in search of a problem.

Is the intent to target transgender minors, perhaps?

The medical piece is just a small part of it, but most of the bill requires things that are, in all likelihood, already required (they can’t take your kid’s DNA without your consent, for example). I think this is really just about appearing to be doing something (*in my Helen Lovejoy voice* “Won’t somebody stop thinking about the children and think of the parents?!”).

Here’s a link to the most recent version if you’re interested:

https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/202 ... ext/er/pdf

[neonzx]

Or maybe to target parents who are illegal immigrants

Not sure how... I know many undocumented immigrants with children and they have no problem getting care for their kids. Just the same as there is no problem enrolling their kids in public schools. If you have the kid's birth cert with your name listed as a parent, all good.

[zekeb]

Slightly off topic, but skip to the 3:00 mark.

[roadscholar]

It wasnt because you were trying to debunk. It was the attacking language you used often used in trying to do so.

I wish I could blame it so simply. No, I was actually fairly neutral when debunking things. It was simply "That's not true. Here what the thing actually says *Quote* *link*"

At which point I got blamed for everything from the Inquisition to Sex trafficing, and not a single person dealt with the fact that the outrage they were screaming about wasn't actually true.

Believe it or not, I've gotten pretty bitter over debunking in the last few years. I guess my faith in Humanity has been eroded.

Suranis, the Inquisition happened. Persecution of gay folks by the Church happened. Sexual abuse among the clegy happened. There ain’t no “debunking” that because it isn’t bunkum. Folks are going to react badly, and over-react. And some atheists are going to think your beliefs are superstitious garbage.

But you shouldn’t take it personally, or as a blanket indictment of the millions of good, decent Catholics in the world. Consider the source.

Is context important, like the fact that other sects have been as bad or worse with sexual abuse than Catholicism? Sure, but that smacks of “whataboutism.” Bad behavior is bad behavior. No excuses.

Are atheists as capable of self-righteous zealotry as any religious fanatic? Sure. And I’ll join you in calling them bigoted idiots.

Don’t get in a lather over it. You’re a good guy, and it’s bad for the constitution.

[neonzx]

Suranis, the Inquisition happened. Sexual abuse among the clegy happened. There ain’t no “debunking” that because it isn’t bunkum.

But you shouldn’t take it personally, or as a blanket indictment of the millions of good, decent Catholics in the world. And atheists are going to think your beliefs are garbage.

And those things are not his burdens to bear and he does not have to defend them. But he needs to accept that they happened.

[Suranis]

Suranis, the Inquisition happened. Sexual abuse among the clegy happened. There ain’t no “debunking” that because it isn’t bunkum.

But you shouldn’t take it personally, or as a blanket indictment of the millions of good, decent Catholics in the world. And atheists are going to think your beliefs are garbage.

You missed the point. They dragged in all that to avoid dealing with the fact that they were dealt a lie.

Its a bit like responding with someone pointing out that 50% of the US adult population ave Vaccinated under Biden by shouting about how Democrats are bad becasue of the Vietnam War.

[roadscholar]

Sadly, clinging to lies that support one’s viewpoints, and deflecting facts that threaten them, has become an equal-opportunity vice lately.

[Suranis]

Ya, that I can agree with

[Gregg]

If y'all would let me, with the help of a crack Regiment of Wienerdogs, rule the world, everything would be much better.

[roadscholar]

Will they have access to the Jewish Space Lasers?

Asking for a friend (see avatar).

[Sunrise]

Will they have access to the Jewish Space Lasers?

Asking for a friend (see avatar).

Akchully, rs, what is your avatar?

[roadscholar]

My buddy Pacino with his nose tight in my armpit. His favorite place.

[Sunrise]

My buddy Pacino with his nose tight in my armpit. His favorite place.

No wonder I couldn’t figure it out! TY muchly.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Dog axiom: Life is better with your nose in the armpit of the one you love.