Newspaper Christian Science Monitor Jul 25, 2014,  n.p . Copyright © 2014 The Christian Science Monitor (www.CSMonitor.com). Limited printing and electronic copying is permitted under this license agreement. Copies are for personal use only. For re-use and publication permissions, please contact [email protected] Florida Law Barring Gun Inquiries by Doctors Upheld by Federal Appeals By Warren Richey • The Florida law seeks to bar doctors from discussing firearms safety with their patients. It was passed after several individuals perceived questions about gun ownership as intrusive and offensive. A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a Florida law that seeks to bar doctors from discussing firearms safety with their patients - including inquiring whether they keep any guns at home. The action reversed a 2012 injunction issued by a federal judge in Miami, who ruled that the Florida law violated the free-speech rights of physicians to counsel their patients about health-related matters. The appeals court panel voted 2 to 1 to uphold the Florida law. The measure, the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act, was passed in 2011 in response to an American Medical Association policy that encouraged doctors to inquire about the presence of firearms in homes with children. The AMA policy was designed to help raise awareness and protect children from gun -related accidents. Despite these good intentions, several would-be patients and the parents of children seeking medical services perceived the questions about gun ownership as intrusive and offensive. In one case, medical staff members separated a mother from her children and then asked the children whether their mother owned any firearms. In another instance, a mother refused to answer questions about whether she kept a gun at home, telling the physician that she felt the question was an invasion of her privacy. The pediatrician then informed the mother that she had 30 days to find a new doctor for her child. The Florida law sought to protect patients' privacy by restricting nonrelevant inquiries and record keeping by physicians about firearms. Violators could lose their license and face up to $10,000 in fines. A group of physicians and medical associations responded to the new statute by filing a federal lawsuit. They argued that the law violated the First Amendment by imposing a content-based restriction on their speech. Lawyers for the state countered that the Florida law was merely a regulation of professional conduct and imposed only an incidental burden on the physicians' speech. Other parts of the law sought to prevent discrimination and harassment by doctors. This was a regulation of conduct, not speech, the state lawyers argued. In reversing the lower court injunction, the appeals court agreed with the state. "We find that the Act is a valid regulation of professional conduct that has only incidental effect on physicians' speech," Judge Gerald Tjoflat wrote for the cour.

1. Newspaper
Christian Science Monitor
Jul 25, 2014,
n.p
.
Copyright © 2014 The Christian Science Monitor
(www.CSMonitor.com). Limited printing and electronic copying
is permitted under this license agreement. Copies are for
personal use only. For re-use and publication permissions,
please contact
[email protected]
Florida Law Barring
Gun Inquiries by Doctors Upheld by Federal Appeals
By Warren Richey
• The Florida law seeks to bar doctors from discussing firearms
safety with their patients. It was passed after several individuals
perceived questions about
gun
ownership as intrusive and offensive.
A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a Florida law that
seeks to bar doctors from discussing firearms safety with their
patients - including inquiring whether they keep any guns at
home.
The action reversed a 2012 injunction issued by a federal judge
in Miami, who ruled that the Florida law violated the free-
speech rights of physicians to counsel their patients about
health-related matters.
The appeals court panel voted 2 to 1 to uphold the Florida law.
The measure, the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act, was passed in
2011 in response to an American Medical Association policy

2. that encouraged doctors to inquire about the presence of
firearms in homes with children. The AMA policy was designed
to help raise awareness and protect children from
gun
-related accidents.
Despite these good intentions, several would-be patients and the
parents of children seeking medical services perceived the
questions about
gun
ownership as intrusive and offensive.
In one case, medical staff members separated a mother from her
children and then asked the children whether their mother
owned any firearms.
In another instance, a mother refused to answer questions about
whether she kept a
gun
at home, telling the physician that she felt the question was an
invasion of her privacy. The pediatrician then informed the
mother that she had 30 days to find a new doctor for her child.
The Florida law sought to protect patients' privacy by
restricting
nonrelevant
inquiries and record keeping by physicians about firearms.
Violators could lose their license and face up to $10,000 in
fines.
A group of physicians and medical associations responded to
the new statute by filing a federal lawsuit. They argued that the
law violated the First Amendment by imposing a content-based
restriction on their speech.
Lawyers for the state countered that the Florida law was merely
a regulation of professional conduct and imposed only an
incidental burden on the physicians' speech.
Other parts of the law sought to prevent discrimination and
harassment by doctors. This was a regulation of conduct, not
speech, the state lawyers argued.
In reversing the lower court injunction, the appeals court agreed

3. with the state.
"We find that the Act is a valid regulation of professional
conduct that has only incidental effect on physicians' speech,"
Judge Gerald
Tjoflat
wrote for the court. "As such, the Act does not facially violate
the First Amendment."
The judge added: "The Act simply codifies that good medical
care does not require inquiry or record-keeping regarding
firearms when unnecessary to a patient's care."
Judge
Tjoflat
noted that one part of the law seeks to prevent harassment of
patients by doctors seeking to "pursue an agenda unrelated to
medical care or safety."
Such harassment would probably occur when a doctor had no
relevant reason to ask about someone's possession of guns in the
home, he said. In contrast, the judge said, a physician dealing
with a suicidal patient "may wish to attempt to persuade the
patient to remove firearms from the patient's home."
The judge said fears that doctors will be subject to discipline
for offending their patient's sensibilities were "unfounded."
"So long as a physician is operating in good faith within the
boundaries of good medical practice, and is providing only
firearm safety advice which is relevant and necessary, he or she
need not fear discipline at the hands of the [state licensing]
Board or a money judgment in a court of law,"
Tjoflat
said.
In a dissent, Judge Charles Wilson said he would find the
Florida law unconstitutional as a legislative act that seeks to
silence doctors' "disfavored message about firearm safety."
"This law is ... designed to stop a perceived political agenda,
and it is difficult to conceive of any law designed for that
purpose that could withstand First Amendment scrutiny," he
said.

4. "Simply put, the Act is a gag order that prevents doctors from
even asking the first question in a conversation about firearms,"
Judge Wilson said.
"The Act prohibits or significantly chills doctors from
expressing their views and providing information to patients
about one topic and one topic only, firearms," he said.
"Regardless of whether we agree with the message conveyed by
doctors to patients about firearms, I think it is perfectly clear
that doctors have a First Amendment right to convey that
message," Wilson said.
Wilson said the decision was unprecedented because it held
essentially that licensed professionals have no First Amendment
rights when they are speaking to clients or patients in private.
"This in turn says that patients have no First Amendment right
to receive information from licensed professionals - a
frightening prospect," he said.
The case is
Wollschlaeger
v. Governor of the State of Florida (12-14009).
Assignment
Introduction
This assignment will challenge your understanding of the
components of argument.
The Prompt
For this assignment, you will need to read "Florida law Barring
Gun Inquiries by Doctors Upheld by Federal Appeals" by
Warren Richey.
Post your initial response early in the assignment period so that
others will have time to respond to you.
Respond to the following questions in your initial response.
Identify each side's claim and restate it in your own words.
What do you think is the writer’s purpose in writing the essay?
What reasons does each side use to support its claim? Are the
reasons convincing?

5. Find examples of the ways supports those reasons. How
convincing is the evidence presented ? Is it pertinent? reliable?
sufficient? slanted or biased?
Do you think the arguments presented in these article are
credible? Why or why not?
post your initial 250-word response
Use standard written English in the forums. Pay attention to
grammar, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. This is an
academic forum. It is not a text message conversation. I will
deduct points for poor English use.