Some Florida lawmakers expressed their desires to save arts organizations that might shut their doors without an influx of state dollars, while others worried about their return on investment.

Gov. Ron DeSantis’ $32 million line-item vetoes stripped away funding for local theater groups, arts festivals, museums and more, sparking outrage in Florida last year.

Now, a House work group is one of several convening to review line-item vetoes from the 2024-25 budget DeSantis signed last year. The Republican-controlled Legislature has resisted the Governor following a clash over immigration policies. 

In a whirlwind 20-minute meeting on Tuesday, the House Combined Workgroup on Vetoed Libraries, Cultural and Historical Preservation Budget Issues did not make any decisions or give firm direction on what, if anything, could be funded.

Rep. Susan Plasencia, a Republican from Orlando chairing the group, said they have two more meetings to finish reviewing the vetoes by Feb. 19.

“This is an important part of our system of checks and balances,” she said as she emphasized reinstating the money is a member-driven process, and the panel debated how they should prioritize to decide whether state funding gets reinstated and what loses out.

“I think we need to look at our cost-benefit, I hate to say, return on investment, but what are we investing and what are we getting back for the citizens?” said Rep. Randy Maggard. “Are we using taxpayer money wisely?”

The Dade City Republican said he worried about money ending up in consultants’ pockets or being spent to redo a city hall, which he argued shouldn’t be paid by the state.

Meanwhile, Rep. Lindsay Cross warned that DeSantis’ funding cuts involving relatively small amounts of money could significantly impact arts organizations.

“A lot of these organizations are working on a pretty shoestring budget,” the St. Petersburg Democrat said. “Twenty thousand dollars from the state in lost funding could mean that a whole program has to go under.”

Rep. Darryl Campbell argued that the state needs to prioritize history, especially Black history, to teach the next generation.

“It’s not just about people coming in and learning the history, but it’s also about our future,” the Democrat from Fort Lauderdale said.

Post Views: 0

After an hour of comments from residents who overwhelmingly opposed it, Republican Sen. Randy Fine’s latest attempt to ban Pride flags and other banners with a “political viewpoint” from public buildings advanced on a party-line vote.

The Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee voted 5-2 for the bill (SB 100), despite criticism from Democratic members Kristen Arrington and Tina Polsky that even after three years, the legislation is half-baked.

Fine admitted the measure could use some work and said he planned to tighten up its language, but argued its central premise is watertight.

“The idea here is that the government should not be in the political messaging business,” he said.

“Politics should be for the politicians. The government’s job is to serve the people.”

If passed, SB 100 or its House twin (HB 75) sponsored by Republican Reps. David Borrero and Berny Jacques would prohibit local or state government offices, schools and universities from displaying political or ideological viewpoints.

That includes flags, or depictions of flags, representing any “partisan, racial, sexual orientation and gender, or political ideology viewpoint.”

The ban would not extend to private individuals expressing private speech or viewpoints, including public officials who choose to do so on their own time. However, the measure also provides that active or retired military personnel may use “reasonable force” at any time to prevent the desecration, destruction or removal or unauthorized lowering of the United States flag.

Asked by Polsky whether that provision would enable a current or former military member to stop someone from burning a flag on their own property, Fine said yes.

“If you’re on your property burning the American flag, this bill would authorize them to exercise reasonable force to stop that behavior,” he said.

SB 100 does not define reasonable force. It also doesn’t define what is and isn’t a political viewpoint.

When he announced SB 100 in December, Fine said the bill takes aim at “fictional country flags like ‘Palestine,’ pro-violence ‘Black Lives Matter’ flags, woke and pro-grooming ideological flags, and the flags of any political candidate in government buildings.”

A passel of younger residents, many of them identifying as members of the LGBTQ community, spoke against the proposal by a more than 7-to-1 ratio. In total, 22 unelected attendees opposed the bill. Just three spoke voiced or signaled support for it.

Jon Harris Maurer, speaking for Equality Florida, said it was disappointing to be arguing again about a bill that failed twice before, chalking up its return more to “congressional posturing” — Fine is running for the U.S. House — than problem solving.

“This does nothing to help struggling Floridians,” he said, adding that simple things like an applicable definition for “flag” were still missing from the bill, as noted by Senate staff.

“These deficiencies have been glaringly apparent since last year and at this point, the only conclusion can be that the unconstitutional vagueness and ambiguity in this bill is intentional,” he said.

Mauer said the bill’s assumption that sexual orientation and gender identity are political viewpoints is beyond faulty. They’re “not political viewpoints,” he said. “They’re people’s identities — everyone, not just the LGBTQ community’s. Despite that fact, the bill’s sponsor has made it explicitly clear that his intent is to target Pride flags.”

Greg Mathers, a retired military vet speaking on behalf of Moms for Liberty, said it is the job of parents to instill their children with values and provide them ideological direction, while the government and schools should focus on streamlining education.

“It’s not the place in school rooms to have divisive symbols, things that are conversation starters for discussions that are best held between parents and children,” he said.

Arrington said SB 100 has several “scary” aspects and would all but invite future lawsuits, the cost of which would fall to taxpayers. It’s also inconsistent with Florida being about “freedom” while doing nothing to address many problems Sunshine State residents are dealing with, including unaffordability, a dearth of mass transit options and a need for more housing.

But lawmakers can walk and chew gum at the same time, Lake Mary Republican Sen. Jason Brodeur fired back. The Legislature sees some 3,000 bills and passes 10% of them yearly, he said, including legislation that has since reduced property insurance rates and attracted more providers to the state.

Brodeur noted that free speech isn’t absolute, citing court cases like Kennedy v. Bremerton that determined the First Amendment rights of public school teachers is not limitless and BWA v. Farmington, which found that students are subject to similar restrictions.

“These are places where there are exceptions to the all-public-employees-have-rights argument,” he said. “The government has no place in dictating what views are acceptable. Right — not mine, not yours. Government is a place for everybody.”

Fine said SB 100 isn’t yet in its final draft and that it could look very different if and when it reaches a Senate floor vote. He also cautioned those against the bill that there could soon be a circumstance where they wished its restrictions were in place.

“(For) the same people who are so upset that we might take away certain political flags in classrooms and oppose this bill,” he said, “I guarantee you if (Donald) Trump flags started showing up in classrooms and on government flag poles and in the back of this room, these people who are so upset about those flags being taken down would be in here screaming and yelling.”

SB 100 has two more committee stops before reaching a floor vote. It will next go before the Senate Community Affairs Committee.

HB 75, meanwhile, awaits a hearing in the first of three committees to which it was referred last month.

Post Views: 0

Do you remember the movie, “Jurassic Park?”

It was based on what seemed like a brilliant idea: clone dinosaurs. It seemed a good solution — until, of course, everything went horribly wrong. It turns out that letting velociraptors roam free wasn’t just dangerous; it was also a spectacularly bad plan for solving humanity’s problems. Expanding the scope of practice of Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) feels a lot like that. In theory, it may sound like a good idea, but in practice, it’s risky and doesn’t deliver the ‘promised’ results.

Let’s dive into why.

The setup: Who are nurse anesthetists and what do they want?

Nurse anesthetists are skilled professionals who assist in delivering anesthesia, an essential part of the anesthesia care TEAM. However, some nurse anesthetists want to take on more than their training allows — like administering anesthesia without any supervision from a physician.  In fact, part of the failure was that Hammond thought he could go it alone and engage in something that was far outside of his league.

Spoiler alert:  it didn’t end well.”

The plot twists: Their arguments fall apart

Over the years, nurse anesthetists have tried several pitches to sell this bad idea, but each one crumbles under scrutiny:

— “It’s safe!”

A study they funded to show that letting them work alone wouldn’t harm patients, unfortunately, proved the opposite: patients were more likely to have serious complications, especially the really sick ones, proving that so-called “independent practice” was a dangerous proposition.

— “It will save money!”

Next, they argued that letting nurse anesthetists work solo would lower costs. But anesthesia billing doesn’t work that way — insurance pays the same regardless of who delivers the medicine. Plus, what is the cost of fixing mistakes from complications? Priceless (and not in the fun credit-card-commercial way).

— “It will help patients in rural areas get surgery faster!”

This is the latest claim: Letting nurse anesthetists work alone will cause them to relocate to rural communities. Sounds great, except for one problem: it’s not true. Florida already has a severe nurse shortage, and overloading nurse anesthetists with responsibilities they’re not trained for won’t suddenly fix it. Nor will they magically uproot themselves from well-paying jobs in urban areas to move into rural communities.

The facts: What science says

A new study from professors at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) — funded by the Florida Society of Anesthesiologists and the American Society of Anesthesiologists—looked into this rural access claim. This group of professors was approached because they had released several prior studies in this arena.  Spoiler alert: it’s not working and there is no evidence that it will work. States that expanded Nurse Anesthetists’ roles outside of their training (and allowed for independent practice) DID NOT see any increase in care for underserved rural areas.

The takeaway: Keep the team together

Nurse anesthetists are an important part of the anesthesia care team — emphasis on “team.” Like Jurassic Park, where things worked best when the experts stuck to their lanes (before the dinosaurs started eating everyone), anesthesia care needs strong leadership from physicians to stay safe and effective. Removing physician supervision isn’t just a bad idea—it’s a very real disaster waiting to happen. And especially in relation to their latest false claim, it won’t help solve Florida’s healthcare access in rural areas either.

Let’s focus on real solutions, not risky sequels no one asked for. After all, we’ve seen how those movies turn out — and to be sure, we are not talking about a movie thriller but a truly scary proposition.

When it comes to anesthesia, we know that the physician-led team model works.  It’s not just the safest but also the most cost-effective means of administering anesthesia medicine – and it is not science fiction but a proven scientific fact.

___

Dr. Asha Padmanabhan, M.D. is a Board-Certified Anesthesiologist and the Florida Society of Anesthesiologists president.

Post Views: 0