President Obama orders hospital visit rights for gays, lesbians

Source: CNN

President Barack Obama has told the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a rule that would not allow hospitals to deny visitation privileges to gay and lesbian partners.

Read more: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/15/obama-seeks-hospital-visit-rights-for-gays-lesbians/?hpt=T1

:fistbump:

This is an empty gesture. More sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing.

The memorandum itself proves this:

"This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person."

My rights are worth more than a nonbinding finger-wagging.

Nice spin, but there's nothing to back it up.

"This is an empty gesture. More sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing."

It is an incredibly substantive move that will have a profound effect. The memo itself does not create any new regulations, because it is ordering HHS to do that. Read it. It directs HHS to amend existing regulations or create new ones under the new guidelines set forth in this memo.

It is still hard to believe there are people out there who would deny visitation privileges based on the sexual orientation of their partners.

Bravo to Obama for doing this.

When the patient is not capable of making the decision - how is the hospital going to rule against family members saying no if there is no legal binding between partners?

Maybe like a living will, giving the medical facility guidance on this issue.

That way, even in an emergency medical situation where the patient cannot respond, they will still be able to communicate their wishes.


Who I would want at my bedside at my time of need should be left for to me to decide; not family, not doctors, not anyone.

I'm serious. We had a friend who was "befriended" by someone who was simply taking advantage of our friend. Our friend was elderly, lonely and happy to have this "friend." Our friend fell in the bathroom. (We do not know the circumstances.) But before falling, he had appointed the "friend" as the person who could sign for him and take care of his finances. Once our friend was in the hospital due to the injuries from his accident and then a stroke, the "friend" moved into our friends apartment and ran up the utility and rent bills. Some "friend."

friends. It happens and there's not a lot that can be done by hospitals about this. Friends and family who are worried about exploitation have legal recourse but if the person is deemed mentally competent, there's not much that will be done. We do, it appears, have a right to make idiots out of ourselves.

I don't think this has a thing to do with whether or not a person is allowed to visit a hospital patient. Plenty of family members show up for less than stellar reasons when a patient is critically ill, also.

better yet notarized in order to be valid. Also, signing to have someone visit you in the hospital should be a different matter than signing a power of attorney. I support Obama's policy. I would just like to see granting power of attorney to someone be just a tad more difficult. I would like to have some objective third party involved in order to make sure that the person signing over that authority at least superficially appears to be of sound mind when they do it. The law may already require this. I don't know. I just know that our friend was tricked. He was not involved in a long-term or meaningful relationship with the guy who took advantage of him.

Any power of attorney must have two witnesses and notarization to be valid.

than the one being discussed in this thread.

THAT'S ALREADY HAPPENED IN MANY CASES!!!

If people who wish to visit are numerous, hospitals may ask visitors if they are related to the patient. In states where couples of the same gender cannot marry, the truthful answer would be "no." In states where they can married and have chosen to marry, the truthful answer would be "yes."

I am sick and tired of bigotted assholes telling me who my family is.

They don't realize there may be a reason to do so, or they are too upset to think. Some people refuse to say anything other than what THEY believe to be the truth. NO one should have to say anything other than he or she believes to be the truth.

SHOULD be denied visitation.

My not-really-married sister would never think of saying she is not related to her partner. They WERE married by a Buddhist priest AND a Unitarian priest, and whatever the state may say she IS related.

As my dad always says (about President Obama): God Bless Him!

He wants the patient to be able to decide who can visit. Which is also good for those of us in a committed hetero relationship.

It's disgusting that "blood" can swoop in and erase years of intent and make someones last days a forced separation from the people they WANT to be with

to punish that person for refusing to cave in to "family" sanctimony and hatred?

Any family that keeps your loved ones away from you when you are dying has stopped BEING a family.

I mean, when my dad got sick, were my family a bunch of jerks then they could have kept his girlfriend out of the hospital and overruled her were she inclined to make decisions for him. They were together for like 20 years! I thought about that as we sat in the hospital. How glad I was that my family treated Midge as dad's partner and with the respect she deserved. I mean, my dad had set my two sisters up as his health proxies when he was sick before. But how many couples, gay and straight, have families who do not like the other person and could swoop in and take over and not even let the person in the room! IT does require forethought.... and if we are healthy we don't always think about what ifs like that. I hope this rule helps with those situations.

Forethought means SHIT to too many hospitals.

Period.

which is how it should be.

So, whether gay or not, make a medical directive/medical proxy and hope your caregivers honor it. Your state may have some law on the subject. If so, the law may include a sample of a directive. Otherwise, ask your doctor or a local hospital.

But, you don't have to stick exactly to a suggested form. For instance, I find the forms usually leave out things like the ability to get medical info and records. So, try to think it through.

"patient to be able to decide who can visit.".

That's the way it should have been set up in
the first place.

:thumbsup:

But this in no way diminishes the need for equal marriage rights. =)

Thanks and belated welcome. :hi:

America just got a little better - again.

can this rule be overturned with a Repub president?

I'd rather see this done through Congress.

However, with a law, a court could never hold that the agency exceeded the rulemaking or enforcement authority granted by Congress, as did a federal court recently in a net neutrality case. Comcast v. FCC, I believe. There's a thread on it somewhere here.

And, as the other poster pointed out, a future Prez could not overturn a law without help from Congress. That is not true of a rule change, though I believe public hearings may have to be held for a rule change.

or it won't be necessary. And a Republican won't be able to do anything about it. But that also depends on whether Obama is re-elected probably need one more Democratic elected immediately after Obama to cement it.

And it won't matter anyway.
The regulation will affect all hospitals that accept federal funds, medicare, and medicaid - so that is just about all of them.

more so Some Catholic lay people (no pun intended) are quite liberal. So are some evangelicals, but probably a smaller percentage. (Just a guess on my part. I've met liberal Catholics IRL. I've met born again Christians who claim to be liberal only on message boards.)

Second -- male hierarchy runs the Catholic Church --

and, yes, Catholic members may be quite liberal -- i.e., they support single payer

health care by huge majority -- and they want contraception, HIV testing -- birth

control and abortion covered! But, again, they do not run the hospitals nor the church --

and they are ignored by the Catholic Bishops, as well. In fact, the US Catholic Bishops

work to prevent any of the issues their members support from being enacted!

And, then, there are many Catholics and other Fundis who work in our nation's pharmacies

and are preventing women from getting Plan B/Emergency contraception because THEIR consciences

are in disagreement with birth control and abortion.

Unfortunately, many of our hospitals have been turned over to Catholic Church -


Hi No Elephants!



:)

and St Joseph's (that was the Catholic one). I see no reason to single out the Catholics from all the other religious organizations who nose into health care decisions.

I'm sure many Protestants work in pharmacies, but as far as I know they welcome birth control --

????

90% of religious organizations in this country are homophobic, but the catholics merit special attention for trying to blackmail the government into maintaining bigotry at the expense of the poor and homeless people that Jeebus told them to serve (apparently, Jeebus only meant "unless they try and let gays get married...in that case, fuck the poor and homeless! Luke 4:37).

Also keep in mind that most of the "faith-based" religious organizations we taxpayers are

now subsidizing thanks to W and Obama are Catholic. They have the majority of them.

And the RCC has made the entire atmosphere surrounding abortion so frightening that we have

now actually had a woman who was having a miscarriage turned away from a hospital because

those in charge felt they could be charged with providing an abortion for her!

Not to mention the threat for women's clinics and doctors of being stalked by "pro-lifers"

with guns -- !!! If we don't damned well abide by their laws, they'll simply shoot the

the doctors and close all the clinics!

The board of directors doesn't call a meeting every time a patient's visitor is turned away. In my experience, a nurse pretty much makes that call, yes or no, regardless of hospital policy. For instance, my nurse told me she wasn't "fussy" about having a visitor arrive after visiting hours had ended (if that was my wish). She consulted no one. What if my visitor had been gay? Would she have been as lenient? That would depend upon her personal views.

think I read that in another of the articles?

And, those SO will be the ones carrying out those wishes.

I rechecked this article and couldn't find anything on that so take it as a rumor for now.

Saint Rose Dominican here in Las Vegas.

They did this EACH TIME I went in - there was never any question or problem at all...

through marriage or whatever you want to call it - but whatever its name - having the same rights as hetero marriage.

Because this comes down to a basic rights issue.

My eyes are barely open so I don't know if I can complete proper sentences, LOL, but I agree with your concern.

In posting my criticism I don't mean to belittle the importance of this rule.

The right to take out a marriage license, have a civil marriage ceremony and have government recognize your union as a marriage are among the rights of "hetero marriage," as you put it. So, you can't afford basic equal rights to all humans unless you, well, afford basic equal rights to all humans, including ALL rights pertaining to marriage. Civil union doesn't just cut it.

as I said in the post my eyes were barely open, and I was thinking more in terms of heteros who consider their spouse a 'life partner' or something - I'm coming across more and more of that these days (and according to other posts on this thread the rule applies to that sort of situation as well). I certainly didn't mean to imply that gay couples shouldn't be able to legally marry exactly like hetero couples can.

I understand what you are saying. I don't believe in 'separate but equal' on this or any other issue. Rights are rights, period.

And that was my main point, it concerns me that this is a special 'rule' being issued rather than being handled on the level of basic equal rights.

I don't think he can fix the Bushco marriage mess on his own. But see Reply 101.

ETA: Belated welcome to DU.

Presuming that eventually partnerships arise in the military --

certainly a wife would have certain claim on advice, consent, whatever --

and any partner should have the same --

There, the hospital would have to respect confidentiality?

Looks like a further muddle and hope the hell the military straightens out one day soon!

so-called health care reform act. And the difficulty Congress seems to have repealing DADT.

Besides, it is not either or. It could be a rule AND Congress could enact it as law.

What we need to do is eliminate our separate services which most other nations have done --

Evidently, we can save 28% of our military budget by doing that!!

Then, we could better see who the creeps are -- suspect JC's?

Look how screwed up with religion Rumsfeld evidently was?

Who would ever think of that man as someone spiritual or doing what "Jesus" would do!!

Yuck!!

Since the wording is nonspecific, a future president would have to blanketly remove the mandate which would be seen as a blow to all patients' rights or issue a specific exemption for GLBT which would result in a major shitstorm for little or no political gain that I doubt would find support even among many of the Republican party. I think the move is brilliant in its simplicity and I'm surprised not to have heard it discussed before.

:thumbsup:

Now to get the REST of the rights for GLTB's in place!

:woohoo:

commended. He could have ordered it sooner, but better late than never. Maybe he is beginning to see that he can bring about change, real change, all by himself. People deserve the company of loved ones, whomever they may be, when they are in dire medical situations.

This is exactly the kind of quality of life considerations that Obama has the ability to impact for the better. This is most welcome for all Americans, gay and straight, and may this signal a huge, real change for real people. Fuck the lobbyists, President Obama. Do the right thing for the people who elected you.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/fedregulations.htm

And, someone may challenge the rule in court.

Good news!

That was one item that ER the show really pushed too. Archaic rule. Which is why the civil unions/Marriage thing became so often pushed. They had more rights if they were married. Now all they have to do is take it all the way and allow the partner to provide instructions on care.

See also Reply # 90.

who knew he had that kind of power.
So will the wingers file suits and obstruct as much as they can.
Probably make them look really bad to try to stop this - so I bet they will.

As to rules, please see Reply ##s 96, 92 and 90. But, you have heard of Executive Orders, under which President Obama does have a lot of power, subject to the Constitution.

President Obama could, if he wanted, have suspended all "don't ask, don't tell" discharges right after his swearing in with an Executive Order under his Constitutional power as CIC, as well as under his Congressionally-granted statutory power under 10 USC 12305. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/fedregulations.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy

He could also have introduced legislation in Congress (via a co-operative member of Congress, of course) repealing the federal Defense of Marriage Act, on the ground that marriage is a traditionally state issue and/or an Equal Rights issue, but not an issue for Congress to define. But he didn't do that, either.

But, this is certainly a lot less than it could be, but better than nothing.

I'm glad that President Obama is providing a positive voice among all of the right wing and papal homophobia.

Please see Reply 101. (And, if you have not already done a medical proxy or medical directive, please do one, no matter how young or healthy you may be.)

there is. At least people will get a say in their care of they can not speak for themselves.

May we assume that Catholic hospitals and the "hospital" the Spawn of Oral run in Oklahoma will file suit to get out of this?

"This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any
right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at
law or in equity by any party against the United States, its
departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees,
or agents, or any other person."

So there is no way to enforce this, or to make amends if the bigots deny visitation anyway. They can not be sued, nor punished.
In addition, everyone reading this who thinks it might help them still needs, just as they always did, to have legal papers ready in advance, at hand, waiting for the potential need. Most of what Obama is saying has to do with honoring the directives that are already in place. If you do not have those directives in place, you still got nothing to point to at all. No law, no regulation.

I have family that lives right across the street.

n/t.

:) :woohoo:

they are just not happening as fast as I know I would like.

Fairness to all!!!

Kudos the the Pres!

:thumbsup:

Got this in my email from Lambda Legal, so no link, sorry.

Dear Lisa,

Moments ago President Barack Obama called Janice
Langbehn from Air Force One to personally let her know that
he has signed a memorandum that will have an impact on the special
health care needs of LGBT people and families - and hopefully prevent her
story from happening again.

President Obama told Janice that what happened to her was "outrageous"
and thanked her for her courage.

Lambda Legal launched legal action on behalf of Janice Langbehn against a Florida hospital that denied her visitation after her partner Lisa Pond was stricken with a fatal brain aneurysm. Even though she had power of attorney, for 8 hours hospital staff refused to allow Janice and her children in to see her dying partner of over 20 years - with one employee informing her that she was in an antigay city and antigay state.

In homes across the country - including the White House -
Janice's tragic story brought light to the special health care issues that LGBT
people face. Her courage and dedication to tell her story and help educate others
showed us all that we can make have an impact. Tonight, we simply
want to say: Thank you, Janice!

The health care memorandum the President just announced directs the
Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to promulgate rules for
hospitals that receive federal funding to develop visitation
policies that take into account LGBT families and to ensure that rules
are enforced for respecting the legal documents that patients have
about who can make decisions for them in medical emergencies. The President also directed HHS to report back in 180 days with reccomendations to address these and other health care issues that affect LGBT patients and their families.

Just for a little while.

pulling their hair out now!!!!!

with "the gay!"...:D

Thanks PO, it's a step toward Equal Rights that every citizen is born into...:patriot:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

entire lives and will continue to so do until total equality under the law for all humans is reality.

:bounce:

hospital waiting room and not like a gay pride parade.

But freeperbaggers don't know that.

Shh.

Now we just need to keep hammering away at the military's resistance to DADT.

But, but according to some posters here Obama is a homophobe!

Thinking of a late colleague who succumbed to an illness several years ago. I think he and his partner would have liked that.

:kick:

awesome!!!!

Thank you, Mr. President! :patriot:

:applause: :yourock: :woohoo:

:kick:


Well done Mr. President. :patriot:

or does it seems like he found a pair and is starting to do things the way he knows they can be?

I was just thinking the same thing myself. Let's hope he keeps it up!

but what was that I saw the other day about the Obama admin pressuring congress NOT to vote on repealing DADT this year? Yes, this hospital visitation rule change will be a good thing - I just tire of baby steps. :shrug:

a man with a brain and a heart. Bravo :)

Still a long, loooooong way from real, meaningful improvement, but it will help.

I am so grateful that you are our president.

KnR

:kick:

to a terrible and uncompassionate practice/policy.

And will the benefit extend to any unmarried domestic partners?

This will also pertain to heterosexual unmarried couples, widows, singles, etc.
EVERYONE will have the right to decide who can visit them and also who can make decisions for them.
CNN has posted a FULL story version now:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/hospital.gay.visitation/index.html?hpt=T1

If the person is 'named' in the Living Will/advance directives for medical decisions then they will be able to make medical decisions even if not married or of the same sex, etc.

either heteros or to blood relatives or relatives by marriage or to people of the opposite gender. Married or not, gay or not, you get to choose your own medical proxy. Even if you are hetero, you could choose, say, your gay next door neighbor.

I even just checked Texas law online and could not find a limitation. http://estate.findlaw.com/estate-planning/living-wills/estate-planning-law-state-living-wills.html If Texas doesn't have one, I'm kind of assuming no state does.

Do you know of any state that does?

The visits, however, have long been an issue, especially if a bigoted parent presses the issue and the patient has no proxy, so this is a step.

her partner was listed as the person with medical proxy. She gave the medical directive papers to the hospital and the hospital totally ignored & dismissed them, wouldn't let her see her partner, wouldn't give her any information at all regarding her medical condition or even that she had been moved to another room, etc.
As seen in this CNN video: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x455857

If somebody is named in a legal directive as designated to make decisions, whether it's soembody's sexual partner, business partner, cousin, next door neighbor, or boss, they should legally have access to the person in hospital. What their gender is or whether they are having sex with each other shouldn't matter.

Rick Warren must be stirring in his grave!

this is good news.

However, I can't picture this being a common issue, since for the most part, nurses and doctors tend to be reasonably compassionate people.


Maybe a religious hospital or two, I don't know.

And neo theos in all professions seem to be getting more bizarre by the day.

Maine is a hell of a place.

I've never seen anything like it personally. I would hope that it isn't just a locale specific quality of life, but I suppose it's possible.

make things hard for a couple who are not legally recognized by the law.

It also sucks because without marriage, these couples don't get to share insurance, i.e, health, life, car.. all of these things are denied to a partners who may be in a relationship with one another for years.

Honestly, religion is not supposed to dictate the law. For "law" purposes, the contract of marriage recognized by state and federal authority is for legal purposes only. The contract of the union allows for different tax fillings, insurance issues, family needs (children custody etc)... The contract has nothing to do with recognizing love or family or religion.. its a legalized document recognizing certain rights and privileges afforded to married couples.

It is absolutely ridiculous that in this day in age that we are purposefully designing laws and mandates inducing discrimination. Disgusting... And for these wing-nut repukes who keep demanding that govt stay out of their personal lives are hypocrits... How much more of a nanny state can you create when you dictate that two loving adults cannot marry one another or that a woman cannot decide with her Dr. what is best in her life and with her body.... If you ever trip these people up with their sheer hypocrisy, they will get that spark of light in recognition.. and either stop their b.s. or go into overdrive because they are soooo wrong.

After a lot of stagnation in his first year, it looks like Obama is finally setting his foot down on gay rights like he promised. Hopefully DOMA will be next.

Bravo Mr. President!

The way it should be. Push the haters aside, let people who love each be with each other. Especially in such times of need.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:woohoo:

“It’s a huge deal,” said David Smith, vice president of policy for the Human Rights Campaign, which worked with the White House to develop the memorandum, in an interview Thursday night. “Nearly every hospital in the country will now be required to provide hospital visitation rights to LGBT families. It’s an enormous step. In the absence of equal marriage rights in most jurisdictions, this step provides an essential right to LGBT families for a gay person or a lesbian person to spend time with their partner in a critical situation.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/us/politics/16webhosp.html?hp

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
April 15, 2010
Presidential Memorandum - Hospital Visitation

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

SUBJECT: Respecting the Rights of Hospital Patients to Receive Visitors and to Designate Surrogate Decision Makers for Medical Emergencies

There are few moments in our lives that call for greater compassion and companionship than when a loved one is admitted to the hospital. In these hours of need and moments of pain and anxiety, all of us would hope to have a hand to hold, a shoulder on which to lean -- a loved one to be there for us, as we would be there for them.

Yet every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides -- whether in a sudden medical emergency or a prolonged hospital stay. Often, a widow or widower with no children is denied the support and comfort of a good friend. Members of religious orders are sometimes unable to choose someone other than an immediate family member to visit them and make medical decisions on their behalf. Also uniquely affected are gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives -- unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated.

For all of these Americans, the failure to have their wishes respected concerning who may visit them or make medical decisions on their behalf has real consequences. It means that doctors and nurses do not always have the best information about patients' medications and medical histories and that friends and certain family members are unable to serve as intermediaries to help communicate patients' needs. It means that a stressful and at times terrifying experience for patients is senselessly compounded by indignity and unfairness. And it means that all too often, people are made to suffer or even to pass away alone, denied the comfort of companionship in their final moments while a loved one is left worrying and pacing down the hall.

Many States have taken steps to try to put an end to these problems. North Carolina recently amended its Patients' Bill of Rights to give each patient "the right to designate visitors who shall receive the same visitation privileges as the patient's immediate family members, regardless of whether the visitors are legally related to the patient" -- a right that applies in every hospital in the State. Delaware, Nebraska, and Minnesota have adopted similar laws.

My Administration can expand on these important steps to ensure that patients can receive compassionate care and equal treatment during their hospital stays. By this memorandum, I request that you take the following steps:

1. Initiate appropriate rulemaking, pursuant to your authority under 42 U.S.C. 1395x and other relevant provisions of law, to ensure that hospitals that participate in Medicare or Medicaid respect the rights of patients to designate visitors. It should be made clear that designated visitors, including individuals designated by legally valid advance directives (such as durable powers of attorney and health care proxies), should enjoy visitation privileges that are no more restrictive than those that immediate family members enjoy. You should also provide that participating hospitals may not deny visitation privileges on the basis of race, color, national
origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The rulemaking should take into account the need for hospitals to restrict visitation in medically appropriate circumstances as well as the clinical decisions that medical professionals make about a patient's care or treatment.

2. Ensure that all hospitals participating in Medicare or Medicaid are in full compliance with regulations, codified at 42 CFR 482.13 and 42 CFR 489.102(a), promulgated to guarantee that all patients' advance directives, such as durable powers of attorney and health care proxies, are respected, and that patients' representatives otherwise have the right to make informed decisions regarding patients' care. Additionally, I request that you issue new guidelines, pursuant to your authority under 42 U.S.C. 1395cc and other relevant provisions of law, and provide technical assistance on how hospitals participating in Medicare or Medicaid can best comply with the regulations and take any additional appropriate measures to fully enforce the regulations.

3. Provide additional recommendations to me, within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, on actions the Department of Health and Human Services can take to address hospital visitation, medical decisionmaking, or other health care issues that affect LGBT patients and their families.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

You are hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-hospital-visitation

Do not forget that. Here is the important part of the memorandum:
"This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person."

It creates no rights, and it carries no enforcement powers. It is a nice thing, but it is what it is, and it is nothing more than what it is. It sure is not equality. I hope those reading these threads will not neglect to set up legal papers because they think this gives them rights. It does not. As always, without the proper legalities, the hospital employees can do as they wish in the moment, and even with the papers, they can still do as they wish without facing any form of punishment.
These issues are important at the worst of all times, so this is no area for playing political fluff games. No new rights are made by this. We still need papers to prove our relationship. People must be prepared for that. That is all that matters. We will carry the same burdens until equality is the law.

It's identical in nature to the "fierce advocate" speeches before the cocktail-and-lobster HRC crowd in DC. It's very pretty sounding, but produces zero result. Not even breadcrumbs from the table, as usual.

It gets tiresome living on pretty words and having no -- zero -- more rights or citizenship than before. On one hand, yes, there have been heavy lifts in Congress with the economy and healthcare, but the steady stream of insults McClurkin, Warren, numerous vigorous defenses of DOMA, pressure from the WH to stall or end motion on DADT are entirely another. Actions do speak louder than words. Isn't a completely non-binding suggestion exactly the same thing the repug governor of Virginia came out with to, umm, kinda-sorta-but-not-really counter his AG's "hate on the gays" ruling? Mealy-mouthing about stopping discrimination and bigotry is mealy-mouthing, no matter who's doing it. In both cases, AFAIC, failing to end discrimination and bigotry is simply allowing it to continue with the political expediency of having only given the appearance of having done something substantive.

The President has taken zero risk, given to gain, struck no blow for dignity and equality. The LGBT community is no better off than it was yesterday. Nothing new here; he's following a well-established pattern since his candidacy.

Patience is a virtue ;)

McClurkin, Warren, three separate and vigorous defenses of DOMA AFTER pretty, flowery speeches (each within a week), finding out that a promised WH commission to find ways to implement the repeal of DADT was nowhere in sight after it was said to be forming, and just this week finding out that the WH has been leaning on Congress to stifle or even stop DADT legislation.

Lucy has snatched that football up way too many times.

It's just a little early to be breaking out the pom-poms.

If the rule is in point of fact implemented, I'll shake 'em with the best. Up until now, my time, money, vote, and effort have been quite ill-used. I'm chock-full of pretty words that have been backed up with "not now's" and "hell no's" and "who the hell were you people again's". The gAyTM remains closed until some positive action takes place.

Obama has ordered HHS to create the rule and have all pertinent documents on his desk within a specified time period.

Sorry for not joining the Halleluia-choir, but Obama could have done this in his first year, in his first month, even in his first week in office. What kept him?

If you read my posts on this thread, especially Reply 101, I am not jumping up and down either. But I don't really know if President Obama could indeed have done this on Day One. Repeal of DADT discharges and other things, yes. This, not sure.

because it's an act of fundamental human decency. They won't know what to thing - but they'll hate it just the same.

Because we gays just love those grand gestures.:sarcasm: It's still "separate but equal," which as we all know, is NOT EQUAL. It's just a small bone to throw to the LGBT citizens. It sounds good, but in reality, how enforceable is it? Does it really address the law?

And all you nice straight folks out there just giddy over this "token acknowledgment" of us Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgendered persons as full citizens with full rights: what if the shoe were on the other foot?

"This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person."

It's not what I want, but it's "not nothing," either.

It's not as much as some on this thread seem to think, though. In every state I know about, you can designate whomever you choose as your medical proxy. Whether you are gay or hetero, you do not have to choose a hetero person or a relative by blood or marriage.

Yay! I'm goddam giddy over this.

And I'll keep fighting for the rest of it whether you like it or not.

EDIT: That last part was uncalled for. I apologize.:hi:

(about fucking time)

Thank you, Mr. President! :patriot:

equality.
The paragraph at CNN did not mention how this will be enforced. That is, if bigots keep family out of the room until the patient dies, does the bigot prevail or is the bigot profoundly punished? Right there lies the detail that will make or break this regulation. If it is just a request, it will not be followed by the hard core religious bigots.
So what will back this up, what will actually make sure the right thing is always done? Equal rights under the law. Nothing short of that will serve the needs of families.

You can be sure that he's headed to a courtroom somewhere to have this blocked.

Who didn't want this happen?

next

:patriot: :woohoo:

And thus the evils of Obamacare!!11!1!111 More proof he's an Atheist Muslim Marxist!!11111!! :eyes:



One more step towards making the entire country realize... equality is unremarkable.

:headbang:

This is not a law. It is not an executive order. It does not grant any additional rights to anybody. There are no penalties for ignoring it. It is, in effect, merely Obama saying, "Hey, you guys wanna think about letting gay people see other gay people in the hospital, maybe?"

In light of the continued stalling on DADT, this smacks of more glad-handing, empty gesturing from a president forced to grudingly acknowledge gay people in the hopes that they will still campaign for and contribute to him.

President Obama STILL doesn't care about gay people, and the GayTM is still closed.

Every other comment on this thread is about how this is going to make Freepers heads explode, or words to that effect.

These are people's lives and deaths at stake here. This is not a fucking contest. It is an embarrassment that in this supposedly free country, we still have people who are legally second-class citizens. Advances in equality are not made (WHEN they're made) so you can yell, "In your face, teabagger!"

Treating equality like a political football is not just wrong, it's offensive.

We're starting to exhibit symptoms of Stockholm syndrome.

I can't really get angry, but every time Obama does something sorta right his ardent supporters are dazzled by it as if it were the BEST possible thing he could have done.

It's a token action - the offensive part to me is that the defense of our lives isn't even worthy of a law or an executive order in hospitals, nor in the military.

Our lives are not discretionary, and the treatment of our lives should not be discretionary.

Having said all that the BEST protection for visiting your partner in the hospital is to be explicitly listed on the admission form as next of kin. If I were layed up in the hospital with my leg all broke in three place from shoving it up some republican's ass in a hurry, and I said my partner was going to visit and they said no, I'd probably have to go into surgery to have my other leg extracted from the hospital administrator's ass, shortly before transferring to a different hospital

FORTUNATELY, in Dallas county there are no hospitals that deny visitation and only an idiot doctor would even think of preventing one's support group from providing holistic recovery support.

Your hospital story I mean...you're right, it does seem an awful lot like a meaningless gesture that's supposed to mollify us - and it seems to be doing just that. grr

Policies have real life effects on real live people. Treating it like a football rivalry leads to such idiocy as liberals cheering for a Republican health care reform bill and deciding it was a 'win' cause it was passed by Democrats.

before getting all excited. I am suspicious this is another set of crumbs being thrown before the midterns to open up the GayTM and get votes.

Will wait to see what gay rights groups say before I throw a party.

It specifically states that no new rights are granted, and no enforcement will be done.

Now as to this part:

"This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person."

Does this refer to the US government and it's various agencies and not hospitals? This could be a way of continuing to excluding those treated in the military medical services from any rules.

It looks like this proposes rules requires hospitals to abide by existing medical directives or directived on visitors given by patients to the hospital.

Am still a little confused about exactly WHO that last paragraph applies to, hospitals or the government.

This still needs serious interpretation.

HHS to create new regulations, which WILL have the force of law. That is what that means.

It ORDERS the Secretary of HHS to "Initiate appropriate rulemaking" regarding visitation and specifically orders HHS to ensure that regulations are being followed and then to report back to the President.

Go read what was issued, the text is right in this thread.

"This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The more I think about this, the more I agree with toasterboy.
shrug

The MEMO ITSELF doesn't do that, it orders HHS to create the necessary regulations. That is what that means.

"This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person."

This is a completely empty gesture that binds the hospitals to exactly NOTHING.

Do that. Because the memo orders HHS to create the necessary regulations, which WOULD be enforceable.

The memo directs the department to set up the "rule". The memo also clearly stipulates that the "rule" will not grant any rights or privileges, and the US will have no authority to enforce it.

"The memo also clearly stipulates that the "rule" will not grant any rights or privileges, and the US will have no authority to enforce it."

In fact, it says the exact opposite. The memo *itself* creates no new rules or regulations, because the memo is directing the appropriate agency (HHS) to do so, and orders HHS to "take any additional appropriate measures to fully enforce the regulations."

Congress didn't pass a law. Obama didn't issue an executive order. This is a FUCKING MEMO. It has ZERO legal weight behind it. What exactly do you imagine is going to happen to the hospitals who refuse to comply with this "rule"? How exactly are hospitals going to be held accountable to follow the President's suggestion?

Congress can give federal agencies the authority to establish regulations that have the force of law and has done so many, many times. Do you think the FCC's regulations are unenforceable because "Congress didn't pass a law" for each of them? Do you think the FDC's regulations have "ZERO legal weight"? There are already laws and regulations on the books to deal with hospitals that violate federal regulations. Why is this hard to understand?

Holy shit. The memo ITSELF does not establish the regulations. It orders HHS to establish the regulations because it is HHS that has the authority to do so by law! It is not a suggestion, it is an order to HSS to create new rules or alter existing ones to meet the requirements of the order.

I'll be sure to bookmark this thread, so that the next time a woman is prevented from being at the bedside of her dying wife, I can dig this up to present to you and you can show me exactly what laws the hospital broke, and exactly what legal recourse the woman has.

Enforcement will probably entail suspension of HHS funding to hospitals that violate HHS rules.

Thanks for the thread, Tx4obama.:thumbsup:

people bashing him and who have been calling him anti-gay, anti-people just seem so blinded........

he does a great job of slow diplomacy where necessary and flat out doing the right thing-and to hell with conservative haters. It's a big balancing act, and I like how he's handling it. (I wish the unfortunate necessity of creating change diplomatically didn't have to be so slow, but that is reality)

significant reasons for marriage equality. I know there are many more but this one is one of the most important ones.

Read the memo.

"See, the gays have more rights without an election...they don't need marriage."

Bet you 20 to 1 some will say that.
(even if it IS meaningless, as you claim, they will USE it as if it were writ in stone)

Frankly, I don't give a shit about what the fundies will "use" against us. I am post-outrage at the idea that elected officials won't do the right thing because some inbred redneck won't like it.

This President promised to be a Fierce Advocate for gay rights. To date, he has fiercely run from every issue that had anything to do with gay. How the "fundies" may or may not react is the least of my fucking concerns.

No more excuses. No more "baby steps". Equality right the fuck now.

But the reality is that the "fundies" wield a HUGE amount of political power, that's just how it is and we can't deny facts, I don't think. And yes, it does seem that these few crumbs are enough for the cheering section even though they have no force in law. This bit from the memo is worrisome to me:

"The rulemaking should take into account the need for hospitals to restrict visitation in medically appropriate circumstances as well as the clinical decisions that medical professionals make about a patient's care or treatment."

I'm not at all sure some hospitals wouldn't invent some obscure "medical reason" to exclude, for example, a person not related by "blood." It would not be the first time bigots found some quirk or loophole to exercise their agendas.

In fact, the more I read about it - IT'S VIRTUALLY MEANINGLESS!

THIS DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

IT'S A "MEMO" - AND THE MEMO IS ONLY A SUGGESTION GODDAMMIT!!!

Of course it raises the question -- "How the hell was it that hospitals could REFUSE patients the right to designate their surrogate decision maker on ANY basis, EVER?"

The hospital where I work has allowed this for as long as I can remember. No one has received less care because of it. No one has died because of it. Everything is just fine. Family is who the patient says is family.

Now there's a president who believes we're all created equally.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Like Ted Kennedy, Obama is doing what is right, not just what is easy.

Everyone seems to be missing the last part of the memo:


"This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person."

The 'memorandum' is NOT an executive order of law.
It is an order to HHS to establish the regulation/rule.
The HHS now will create the regulation and then it will be the rule.

Obama directs HHS to set up proposed rules, until they are put into place, Obama's directives have no force of law behind them other than with the director of HHS.

Once HHS proposed rules are put into place, a medical facility would ignore them at their peril. The new rule will have the force of law behind it, with penalties and sanctions stipulated.


Proposed rules do not. They aren't 'rules' until adopted by the agency.


This is how federal rule-making gets done.

Same in Transportation.

Same in Commerce....

And then we'll see what happens when hospitals in Florida and Virginia and Arizona and Texas ignore them. If justice is served, I'll be delighted to say, "Dear President Obama: I was wrong, and thank you."

I hope I'm wrong.

After the proposed rule gets examined, discussed, lawyers go over it, and the agency adopts it, THEN it has the force of law behind it.


Even if taken to court over a rule, the agency will still enforce it until told otherwise.

I have been operating under rules that have been in litigation for over four years after being first adopted, yet still are enforced by the federal agency that put them into place.

I violate them them at my peril. Retribution is swift and merciless if you fuck up and violate one of those rules, no matter how reprehensible you personally think it is.

That is what HHS will do to hospitals that want to go their own way.

For the two women in Florida, years of litigation meant nothing. They were still denied the comfort of each other's presence when it mattered most. THAT is what I'm worried about. I think this rule will be ignored by those hospitals who do not allow same-sex visitation rights, and I don't believe the punishment will be enough to keep them from doing so.

But we'll see.

Long way to go.

GLAAD thanks the President for not kicking us in the teeth again, and that makes everything better!

announcement helps the matter because it's the president stating he's on our side. We know who makes laws and rules on them, I don't like everything this man does, not even close - but he's light years ahead of what we could have gotten. And we'll take our "inch", and lock it in place and keep going forward. I commend you for your fighting for full rights for us. You rock TL!

that's also what we expect from you.

:applause:

Or, for that matter, the sexual orientation of the patient's visitors?

As someone who has been hospitalized quite a few times in the past 5 years, the only restriction on visitors has been for very young children.