As a libertarian, I don't believe in the initiation of force. I feel that the bill is violating the property and freedom of speech rights of the doctor. Just because a doctor is an a-hole doesn't mean we should make a criminal out of him and threaten him with fines and imprisonment. I can always go to another doctor. And I also have a difficult time believing this is a widespread problem.
Of course, if I were a doctor, if I mentioned guns at all it would be to say buy as many as you can, train as much as you can, teach the kids about marksmanship as early as possible and take them to an appleseed!
not sure how to get rid of that smiley face at the top.
I, too, struggled with this issue...but I decided to support the bill for two reasons:
1. The bill was not intended to punish doctors, it was a reaction to doctors who were abusing people who were vulnerable - the sick, poor, needy, and dependent.
2. Pediatricians were not just asking parents and refusing service, they were interrogating children who do not understand why such information might be personal. One case in Uxbridge, MA involved a doctor who was questioning a child about "daddy's guns" and their locations. When the mother objected, the doctor began questioning her. She refused and left the office. A few days later, she was told by a police officer friend that the doctor had filed a police report about her family's lawful gun ownership.
At that point, I decided that the doctor's freedom of speech wasn't the issue. The doctor is not in any way prohibited from providing safety information of any kind. But by using his inherent authority over vulnerable people including children to advance a purely political agenda was over the top.