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

U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna will head a congressional effort to declassify info on topics from John F. Kennedy’s assassination to the origins of COVID.

The St. Petersburg Republican promised to uncover federal government secrets and to do so in a bipartisan manner.

“For too long, the American spirit has been dimmed by veil of secrecy, by a government that has grown too comfortable in the shadows, denying us the transparency we deserve,” she said.

Luna appeared at a Washington Press conference alongside U.S. Rep. James Comey, a Kentucky Republican and Chair of the House Oversight Committee.

Comey stressed that the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets would act under the auspices of the larger committee and be made up of Democrats and Republicans. He said there was no better person to lead it than Luna.

“She is committed to throwing open the windows for the American people to allow the sunlight of truth shine on the federal government,” Comey said.

Luna played a role in 2023 in a House Oversight Investigation of military classification on unidentified flying objects. That included discussion of objects captured on surveillance at Eglin Air Force base in Florida, and Luna said she intends for the task force to continue scrutinizing info about that.

But she also said the task force will look at the assassinations of President Kennedy in 1963, former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968.

Three government investigations into the JFK assassination have taken place, most notably the Warren Commission. But Luna said many didn’t ask eyewitnesses enough, including some in the room for the President’s autopsy. All investigations concluded a lone shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald, killed the President, but Luna said she disagreed.

“I believe that there were two shooters,” Luna said.

She also wants to look at any cover-up of Florida billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking operation. Epstein in 2008 served just 13 months after Florida prosecutors cut what was widely seen as a “sweetheart deal.” Epstein was arrested years later on federal charges but committed suicide in 2019.

She also wants to know what information the CIA had in hand before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. All of the subjects she presented have been the subject of conspiracy theories shared online and before that in other forums. But Luna said this would not be a “conspiracy theory committee”

The announcement did not release what Democrats will serve on the task force. Luna said she believes President Donald Trump’s administration supports the declassification mission, and noted Trump recently declassified new information on the Kennedy shooting,

Luna said the goal of the task force will be to demystify events and end online speculation.

“When you have only certain information that’s shared with the American people, that’s when conspiracy theories happen,” she said. and it’s in my opinion, that conspiracy theories can be detrimental. It doesn’t mean that in the last couple months, we haven’t been right on a few things.”

Post Views: 0