Posted on 08/20/2019 10:55:12 AM PDT by rktman
Two weeks ago, the New Hampshire Academy of Family Physicians sent Gov. Chris Sununu a letter that implored him to sign three gun violence prevention bills, House Bills 514, 109, and 564. Instead, the governor vetoed all three. At this point, we urge the House and Senate to overturn his veto and pass these critical bills into law.
After the governors veto of these bills, we feel the need to write this piece to illuminate why we think these measures are so important to our state and nation. As family physicians, we see the consequences of gun violence every day in our practices. Although the media may consider the immediate horror that we all feel, it is the physicians who see the long-term consequences. We see the parent of the child who died by suicide, the children of the police officers shot on duty, and the families of victims of all gun violence. We see many of them for the rest of their lives. As physicians, we must stand up for public health and the communities we serve. Gun violence is a matter of public health and it is critical that our society treats it as such. Just as reducing drunk driving deaths didnt require banning cars or alcohol, we can save lives through preventive strategies that let us live more safely with things that can cause harm.
(Excerpt) Read more at concordmonitor.com ...
The remedy for “gun violence” is to punish law abiding citizens? Interesting how leftists want criminals not punished but no such consideration for good folks.
I know. Both of us are crazy! Weeeeeeeeeeee...
It was brilliant of the leftists to transform a trusted profession into a bunch of gun grabbers, then it’s knives... high capacity slongshots.
These folks were not satisfied with controlling your very breathe.. they eant you begging on your knees for your next lung full.
Guns don’t kill people doctors do.
Maybe these docs should think about not prescribing so many psychotropics to boys, just because the female oriented schools have forgotten how to deal with little boys and prefer to have them all doped up. That might be a start.
Resolution no. 512 Immigration Policy This resolution proposes that the AAFP actively oppose the current administrations im-migration policies and the building of a wall along the southern border of the United States given its detrimental effects the economic, ecological and community health of the border region. There was mixed testimony regarding the resolution, both for and against. There was testimony of the stress of immigration policy on patients. Some supported the right of the country to pro-tect its borders. Others were concerned about the specific targeting of the current presidential administration and suggested a more comprehensive policy in this area.
Resolution no. 513 Support a Publicly Funded Universal Primary Care Program This resolution proposed that the AAFP develop a policy statement in support of a pub-licly funded universal primary care system in states who pursue this model and survey chapter about the feasibility of a legislative approach to promoting a universal primary care system in their state. There was overwhelming support of this resolution and the reference committee con-sider this an incremental step toward adoption of more universal access to primary care services. Outcome: AdoptSomehow taking the life of an unborn child doesn't bother these "family" medicine providers:
Resolution no. 501 Repeal the Hyde Amendment This resolution proposed that the AAFP endorse the principle that women reeiving health care paid for through health plan funded by state and federal government who have coverage for continuing a pregnancy also should have coverage for ending a pregnancy. It also proposes that the AAFT engage in advocacy and lobbying efforts to overturn the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for abortions.But really it just boils down to the dollars. They are all for tort reform as long as it only benefits them as a defendant - not when the plaintiff wins!
Resolution no. 506 Loser Pay Tort Reform This resolution presented three proposals. First, that the AAFP support loser pays tort reform for medical malpractice and personal liability cases, whereby the plaintiff s attorney shall be jointly and severally liable for the costs of defendants legal and related fees, up to a cap established by legislation.
They also have a section seeking to change the perception that they play a role in the opioid epidemic. In our state, according to the CDC, in our state there were 146 firearm deaths, 17 of which were homicides. During the same time period there were 467 drug overdose deaths. Many of those deaths were the end result of an opioid addiction that started with a prescription for pain killers written by a doctor. Suicides accounted for 265 deaths, another area that family physicians could and should be working harder on.
Doctors “practice” medicine.
Also, what do you call the person who graduates last in the class of Med school?
doctor.
Doctors kill more people than assault weapons.
Not counting abortion doctors.
Question will all women who got abortions be automatically red flagged?
Ba dum, tish ;)
PP kills more children than guns.
As family physicians, we see the consequences of gun violence every day in our practices. Although the media may consider the immediate horror that we all feel, it is the physicians who see the long-term consequences. We see the parent of the child who died by suicide, the children of the police officers shot on duty, and the families of victims of all gun violence.
What we all see in New Hampshire is the many more deaths from opioid addiction, much of which came straight out of a doctor's office.
None of their friggin business
These quacks need to shut up.
Their mistakes kill 200,000 innocent Americans every year, and yet they have the gall to want to take away our Second Amendment rights? BS!
(Although to hear some FReepers tell it, combating stoned driving does require banning drugs.)
The state did pass laws which curbed the consumption of alcohol in bars.
The state increased surveilance of and action against persons driving drunk.
None of which is anywhere near banning alcohol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.