Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

President Obama orders hospital visit rights for gays, lesbians

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 07:12 PM
Original message
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-hospit...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. kick and rec.
:fistbump:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
220. A lot of of you REALLY aren't paying attention to the relevant details.
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #220
226. Hospitals that violate this lose Federal funding. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #226
228. Not according to the memorandum itself.
Nice spin, but there's nothing to back it up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 04:15 AM
Response to Reply #220
230. Nor are you paying attention to relevant details.
"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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #230
233. Piffle. Talk to me in 6 months to a year. Show me the "profound effect."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
secondwind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. Perfect. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. Well done!
Edited on Thu Apr-15-10 07:36 PM by liberation
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbmk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 03:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
84. Problem will still be there as far as I can tell
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #84
111. A prudent person could draw up a list of allowable visitors, beforehand.
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #111
187. But what about people who are not prudent?
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."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #187
202. Well, I don't see there's a hell of a lot any institution can do about people choosing the wrong
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #202
210. Maybe signatures on powers of attorney should be witnessed or
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #210
211. They already are.
Any power of attorney must have two witnesses and notarization to be valid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #210
212. As another poster already said, they are witnessed and notarized and it's a different issue
than the one being discussed in this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #111
198. Won't stop a hospital from STILL ignoring the wishes of the couple.
THAT'S ALREADY HAPPENED IN MANY CASES!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 05:28 AM
Response to Reply #3
89. When people are very, very sick, hospitals restrict their visitors.
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."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
we can do it Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #89
117. The Truthful Answer Anytime Is Yes. Let the Bastards Prove Otherwise
I am sick and tired of bigotted assholes telling me who my family is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #117
128. Some people don't think to say anything other than what THEY believe to be the truth.
Edited on Fri Apr-16-10 08:12 AM by No Elephants
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #128
136. If they don't believe they are related to their partner, maybe they
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Change Happens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
4. Lol...This great President is on fire! I am loving it.....
As my dad always says (about President Obama): God Bless Him!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
5. CNN has a FULL story up now, here's the LINK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MGKrebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
6. From what I can tell, it's not just gays.
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alphafemale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Exactly. a blood relative may be the last person someone would want to see.
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #9
28. What could be crueler than using a person's illness (especially if it's a terminal illness)
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mopar151 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #28
59. Right on the mark! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ejpoeta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #9
130. that's what health proxys are for. but that requires forethought.
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #130
199. And, as I said upthread - THEY ARE CONSTANTLY IGNORED even with all the paperwork at hand!!!
Forethought means SHIT to too many hospitals.

Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
69. Can you IMAGINE it would ever be any other way....?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #6
75. "He wants the patient to be able to decide who can visit"
which is how it should be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberty Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 03:37 AM
Response to Reply #6
85. Right. It also helps non-English speakers designate a heatlh advocate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 05:37 AM
Response to Reply #6
90. the issue tends to arise when the patient may well not be capable of making a decision.
Edited on Fri Apr-16-10 05:39 AM by No Elephants
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kajsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
218. What a concept!
"patient to be able to decide who can visit.".

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

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tandot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
7. Good. One step in the right direction. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
8. Good news. Good for the president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dencol Donating Member (297 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
10. Great step in the right direction.
But this in no way diminishes the need for equal marriage rights. =)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Delphinus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
44. Agreed.
Thanks and belated welcome. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chollybocker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
11. Thanks, Prez!
America just got a little better - again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SocialistLez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
12. While I like this...
can this rule be overturned with a Repub president?

I'd rather see this done through Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. But 'regulations' fall in the lap of HHS Sebelius' department. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 05:43 AM
Response to Reply #13
92. No law says it has to be a rule, though,. Or a law. It could be one or the other, or both.
Edited on Fri Apr-16-10 05:50 AM by No Elephants
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #12
25. IMO we are very near the start where either there will be legislation
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #25
47. Aren't most of our hospitals now Catholic Church run? Let the whining begin!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. I don't think so. Maybe in some areas in some states, but not down here in Texas.
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. Well, if this causes the Catholic conscience to ache, they'll be asking for exemption...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #52
110. Not sure why you are singling out Catholics. Evangelicals and others are just as homophobic, if not
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.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #110
140. First, do Evangelicals run hospitals? Catholic Church does run many of them --
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!



:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #140
205. Sure they do. In my home town we had Methodist Hospital, Baptist Hospital
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #205
221. Agree they are Protestants . . . not necessarily "Evangelicals," tho, are they?
Edited on Fri Apr-16-10 07:55 PM by defendandprotect
I'm sure many Protestants work in pharmacies, but as far as I know they welcome birth control --

????

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #110
181. I Don't Recall Evangelical Charities Threatening To Move Out Of DC Once Gay Marriage Passed.
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).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #181
222. And it was primarily US Catholic Bishops attacking HCR ... birth control, contraceptives, abortion -
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!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #48
93. How about other Christian religious hospitals? And it does not even have to be a hospital policy
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #93
223. Conversationally . . . "end of life" wishes will also come into play here ...
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.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #48
108. Please see Reply 34.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #47
200. When I had a heart attack, my partner was ENCOURAGED to go in with me at our Catholic Hospital
Saint Rose Dominican here in Las Vegas.

They did this EACH TIME I went in - there was never any question or problem at all...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cal Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 05:15 AM
Response to Reply #12
88. I'd rather see it done through recognition of life partners
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #88
94. Separate but equal is never equal, so "no whatever its name" business.
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cal Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 06:24 AM
Response to Reply #94
99. Marriage, yep, and I apologize for my vagueness
Edited on Fri Apr-16-10 06:25 AM by Cal Carpenter
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #99
104. I agree, but there is only so much he can do on his own.
Edited on Fri Apr-16-10 06:49 AM by No Elephants
I don't think he can fix the Bushco marriage mess on his own. But see Reply 101.

ETA: Belated welcome to DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #88
224. ... and this could get even more interesting in military .... ???
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!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 05:41 AM
Response to Reply #12
91. It may never get through Congress. Reflect on the abortion rider to the
Edited on Fri Apr-16-10 05:42 AM by No Elephants
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #91
225. This is such crap with the DADT . . . I'd bet a very few are managing to hold this up ...
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!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abacus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #12
159. Could, but won't
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
14. Excellent start.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeattleGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
15. Excellet!
Now to get the REST of the rights for GLTB's in place!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #15
63. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Omaha Steve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
16. K&R!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
17. Woo Hoo !
:woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
change_notfinetuning Donating Member (750 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
18. Good for Obama. If this is now policy, because of his word alone, he is to be
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #18
96. The "word" of a POTUS alone does not result in a rule. There is a rulemaking process.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/fedregulatio...

And, someone may challenge the rule in court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foxfeet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
19. K&R
Good news!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
20. CNN has a FULL story up now, here's the LINK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
21. Good on the Prez!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatrynXX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
22. This never should have gone on this long.
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #22
97. You can NOW designate ANYone as your medical proxy, not only a relative by marriage or blood.
Edited on Fri Apr-16-10 06:17 AM by No Elephants

See also Reply # 90.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
23. Wow - way to go
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #23
101. "Who knew he had that kind of power"
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/fedregulatio... 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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
24. This is wonderful!!!!
Edited on Thu Apr-15-10 08:23 PM by Politicub
I'm glad that President Obama is providing a positive voice among all of the right wing and papal homophobia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 06:39 AM
Response to Reply #24
103. Way better than nothing.
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.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #103
189. Agree on the advance directive - it's one of the most important documents
Edited on Fri Apr-16-10 01:54 PM by Politicub
there is. At least people will get a say in their care of they can not speak for themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
26. K&R
May we assume that Catholic hospitals and the "hospital" the Spawn of Oral run in Oklahoma will file suit to get out of this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #26
102. Probably.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #26
129. There is no need. The text of the announcement says:
"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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mother Smuckers Donating Member (277 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #26
152. Are you thinking about that 'city of faith' hospital? It closed down years ago
I have family that lives right across the street.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #152
215. Didn't know that. Thanks for the update.
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beyurslf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
27. Good idea but we already have a "rule" for that. It is called marriage equality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
29. OMG, what a pleasant surprise! Thank you, Barack.
:) :woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertDiamond Donating Member (838 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
30. OK, he scores with me on this one!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keepthemhonest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
31. I think he continue to do great things
they are just not happening as fast as I know I would like.

Fairness to all!!!

Kudos the the Pres!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
32. Good for Obama!
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
33. THAT sure is a step in the correct direction!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freeplessinseattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
34. He called Janice Langbehn to personally tell her
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzNick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
35. That'll make us wait for the repeal of DADT...
Just for a little while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Left Coast2020 Donating Member (597 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Oh, the fundies and tea-freaks are
pulling their hair out now!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Good, then they'll have to go th the hospital and have to deal...
with "the gay!"... :D

Thanks PO, it's a step toward Equal Rights that every citizen is born into... :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #37
80. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #36
112. I'm glad it's their turn to do that finally. The rest of us have been ripping our hair out our
entire lives and will continue to so do until total equality under the law for all humans is reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #35
107. Please see Reply 101.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
38. He has to go under the bus and find em, first! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joey Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
39. The Tea Baggers will REALLY freak out! Bravo! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #39
50. Freaking Out looks good on the Bags! This is awesome news!
:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
40. Hey Freeperbaggers, Take a look at the future of military hospital waiting rooms --->






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #40
115. In all likelihood, military hospital waiting rooms will continue to look like military
Edited on Fri Apr-16-10 07:34 AM by No Elephants
hospital waiting room and not like a gay pride parade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #115
135. Well, yes. Of course. People are people.
But freeperbaggers don't know that.

Shh.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BreweryYardRat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
41. Good!
Now we just need to keep hammering away at the military's resistance to DADT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #41
113. Please see Reply ##s 27 and 101.
Edited on Fri Apr-16-10 07:22 AM by No Elephants
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liquid diamond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
42. What?
But, but according to some posters here Obama is a homophobe!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fortyfeetunder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
43. I say WOOHOO with tears in my eyes
Thinking of a late colleague who succumbed to an illness several years ago. I think he and his partner would have liked that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
45. K&R -- and compliments to Obama for guts -- !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
46. Kick.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southern_belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
49. k & r
awesome!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tilsammans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
51. Excellent news!
Thank you, Mr. President! :patriot:

:applause: :yourock: :woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bkozumplik Donating Member (391 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
53. excellent. well done. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BunkerHill24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
54. well worth my rec'd and......
:kick:


Well done Mr. President. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beams1969 Donating Member (127 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
55. Is it just me...
or does it seems like he found a pair and is starting to do things the way he knows they can be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proudohioan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 04:18 AM
Response to Reply #55
86. Not just you......
I was just thinking the same thing myself. Let's hope he keeps it up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
56. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
57. Better than nothing
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:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guilded Lilly Donating Member (960 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
58. The Thinking Person's President :)
a man with a brain and a heart. Bravo :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlbertCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
60. (read as sing-songy as possible) Huckabee's not gonna like this.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
61. Good.
Still a long, loooooong way from real, meaningful improvement, but it will help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Juan_de_la_Dem Donating Member (800 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
62. Outstanding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unpossibles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
64. awesome! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tumbulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
65. Thank you President Obama
I am so grateful that you are our president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kind of Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
66. Wow! And it's about time.
KnR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
67. KnR. We're getting there.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-15-10 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
68. Just one step in the right direction. Next are MARRIAGE RIGHTS! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
70. K & R. Good for Pres Obama and good riddance
to a terrible and uncompassionate practice/policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
71. Without marriage how do they prove they are partners?
And will the benefit extend to any unmarried domestic partners?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #71
78. Yep
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.vis...

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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #78
126. I do not know of any state that limits your choice of medical proxy or medical agent to
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/... 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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #126
190. In the case of the woman & partner which inspired Obama's memorandum
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.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #78
132. That should have been the case now
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harry_pothead Donating Member (752 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
72. K&R
Rick Warren must be stirring in his grave!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #72
114. He's dead?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keepCAblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #114
214. Wishful thinking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harry_pothead Donating Member (752 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #114
219. No I was using poetic license
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
73. K&R
this is good news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
74. Booyah. Should have always been the case.
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #74
118. May depend upon what state we're talking about. Please see Reply 34.
And neo theos in all professions seem to be getting more bizarre by the day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tburnsten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #118
227. Well, as came up in the union thread earlier,
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glowing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #74
134. Its rather common... Esp if the family doesn't approve... they can really
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarshalltheIrish Donating Member (112 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
76. Excellent news
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!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gtar100 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
77. That is awesome!
The way it should be. Push the haters aside, let people who love each be with each other. Especially in such times of need.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #77
145. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
ccharles000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 02:04 AM
Response to Original message
79. k/r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daughter of liberty2 Donating Member (65 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 02:32 AM
Response to Original message
81. This made my day!
:woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
impik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 02:44 AM
Response to Original message
82. 
Its 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. Its 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...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 03:01 AM
Response to Original message
83. Text of President Obama's memorandum/statement
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...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #83
131. You must stil have legal, signed,advance directives
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HillWilliam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #131
157. Exactly. One has to read all the way to the bottom of the memo
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #157
203. Wrong. Obama has ordered HHS to create the rule.
Patience is a virtue ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HillWilliam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #203
209. Let's take a count, shall we:
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #131
201. No one ever said that the rule was in place as of now
Obama has ordered HHS to create the rule and have all pertinent documents on his desk within a specified time period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lamp_shade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 04:44 AM
Response to Original message
87. This is wonderful news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 06:10 AM
Response to Original message
95. At last!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Betty Karlson Donating Member (902 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
98. What took him so long?
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #98
119. Perhaps he needed enactment of the health care reform bill?
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 06:25 AM
Response to Original message
100. This will confuse and perplex the conservatives....
because it's an act of fundamental human decency. They won't know what to thing - but they'll hate it just the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 06:52 AM
Response to Original message
105. Great, another grand gesture that really does not mean shit.
Edited on Fri Apr-16-10 07:14 AM by Raster
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."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #105
123. Please see Reply ##s 34 and 101.
Edited on Fri Apr-16-10 07:54 AM by No Elephants
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #105
139. From one of us "nice straight folks" out here...
Edited on Fri Apr-16-10 09:13 AM by Iggo
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:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CLANG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
106. A.F.T.
(about fucking time)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mad_Dem_X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
109. Wonderful news!
Thank you, Mr. President! :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
116. CHANGE we can believe in!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Soylent Brice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:44 AM
Response to Original message
120. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:45 AM
Response to Original message
121. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
122. Of course, the need for such special rules come from our lack of
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mahatmakanejeeves Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
124. Ken Cuccinelli
You can be sure that he's headed to a courtroom somewhere to have this blocked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #124
127. Will a federal court even hear a challenge to the rule before the rule is actually made?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onpatrol98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
125. Should Have Happened A LOOOOOOOOOOOG time ago
Who didn't want this happen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
133. Good Job Mr. President....
next
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatsMyBarack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
137. ThatsMyBarack!
:patriot: :woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
138. The upright straights will have to share their hospitals with teh h-h-h-homosexuals?


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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mahatmakanejeeves Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
141. Great comment at CNN
if we're not careful, we could wind up creating an enlightened society governed by reason and common sense.

Posted by: glossolalia
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crazylikafox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #141
147. Wow! How true. GOBAMA!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
142. Out-goddamn-standing!
:headbang:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
143. You People Realize This Is Meaningless, Right?
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #143
144. And Another Thing...Gay Equality Is Not About Pissing Off Republicans
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #144
163. I tend to agree with T-Lad
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mother Smuckers Donating Member (277 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #163
167. That's hilarious...in a kinda tragic way.
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #144
206. I agree. I get sick of the sporting event model of politics
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #143
150. I really need to see the meat of this --
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #150
151. Someone Posted the Full Text Upthread
It specifically states that no new rights are granted, and no enforcement will be done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #151
170. OK, just read it --
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #170
183. It's because the memo ITSELF doesn't create new regulations, the memo orders
HHS to create new regulations, which WILL have the force of law. That is what that means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #143
162. Um, sorry but that's total bullshit.
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mother Smuckers Donating Member (277 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #162
164. Well, if this snip from the text doesn't mean what it says, what DOES it mean?

"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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #164
172. The more I read it, the more I am happy with it.
The MEMO ITSELF doesn't do that, it orders HHS to create the necessary regulations. That is what that means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #162
165. I Read It. Did YOU?
"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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #165
173. Um yes. The MEMO ITSELF does not
Do that. Because the memo orders HHS to create the necessary regulations, which WOULD be enforceable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #173
174. Oh, Really? How?
Edited on Fri Apr-16-10 12:29 PM by Toasterlad
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #174
176. That's not at all what it says.
Edited on Fri Apr-16-10 12:39 PM by NYC Liberal
"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."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #176
177. And How Do You Suppose It's Going To Do That?
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #177
182. OK, what don't you get about this?
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?
This is a FUCKING MEMO. It has ZERO legal weight behind it.

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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #182
192. Well, I Guess We'll See, Won't We?
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #177
184. HHS is already authorized by law to setup rules for HHS funding.

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


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
146. Kicked and recommended.
Thanks for the thread, Tx4obama. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlancheSplanchnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
148. President Obama is a great man.
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)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mother Smuckers Donating Member (277 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
149. I sure hope this doesn't end up being a setback, it basically neutralizes one of the more
significant reasons for marriage equality. I know there are many more but this one is one of the most important ones.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #149
153. It Doesn't Neutralize Anything. It Doesn't Change Anything.
Read the memo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mother Smuckers Donating Member (277 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #153
156. You don't think the fundies will use it as ammunition against our quest for equality?
"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)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #156
160. Then Why Not Do Something That Actually MEANS Something?
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mother Smuckers Donating Member (277 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #160
161. I absolutely agree with that, hence my somewhat cynical comment.
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #149
204. It "neutralizes" NOTHING!
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!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #204
232. You are so correct, Tank. It is meaningless.

It's like saying: OK let's all be nice to the queers, now." Thanks, fierce advocate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
154. Good, basic housekeeping measure

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?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
155. It's about damn time!
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
158. Daaaaammmmnnnn.
Now there's a president who believes we're all created equally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #158
166. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
jeremyfive Donating Member (434 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
168. Thank you. God bless Obama.
Like Ted Kennedy, Obama is doing what is right, not just what is easy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mother Smuckers Donating Member (277 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #168
169. What if a hospital decides to ignore this suggestion? There's no legal remedy for that.
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."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #169
234. You are missing the point
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #168
171. He Didn't DO Anything. He Did What He Always Does: Talk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #171
191. You are willfully misconstruing this.
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....


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #191
193. Fine. I'll Concede Your Point and Wait Until the "Rules" Are Established.
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #193
196. Just like in my business, a proposed 'rule' is just so much vaporware.
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #196
207. I Hope YOU'RE Right
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patriot 76 Donating Member (95 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
175. It's a start.
Long way to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
178. GLAAD Applauds Presidential Memorandum Adding Hospital Visitation Protections for Same-Sex Couples

GLAAD Applauds Presidential Memorandum Adding Hospital Visitation Protections for Same-Sex Couples

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the nations lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) media advocacy and anti-defamation organization, today welcomed news that President Barack Obama had signed a Presidential Memorandum adding vital protections for same-sex couples in matters of hospital visitation and other health care issues.

The discrimination faced by Janice Langbehn and her children during such a tragedy should not happen to another family, said GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios. This federal recognition is an important step for gay and lesbian couples who only want the same opportunities to care for the person they love. When Americans hear personal stories like Janices about the hardships faced by gay and lesbian couples and their children, more and more fair-minded Americans are siding with equality.

more


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #178
179. I Guess We Have Equality Now.
GLAAD thanks the President for not kicking us in the teeth again, and that makes everything better!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #179
185. I understand your frustration, but him making a point to even discuss this issue and make this
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!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
180. Congratulations, President Obama! Do the Right Thing and We'll get YOUR Back and
that's also what we expect from you.

:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tracer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
186. What hospital asks for a patient's sexual orientation?
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
188. To the people on this thread who sadly think this is a token gesture
Edited on Fri Apr-16-10 01:51 PM by Politicub
If you've ever gone through the fear of having your loved one in the hospital as I have, you will not understand the sheer terror of the prospect of the hospital admin or their family not letting you back to see them or care for them.

My partner was in an accident in Georgia and rushed to the hospital. I was terrified that I would get the run around in this backward state or be asked to not be in his room at night to help care for him. Luckily his brother said it was OK that I be there. So can you imagine how horrific it would be if your partner was unconscious or dying and you would be denied seeing him or her? Or if their family stopped you from being at their side? This type of cruelty happens all too frequently.

So fuck the naysayers on this thread. I don't think any them know what they're talking about or they're just always negative.

There will be a powerful enforcement of the new rules, or hospitals will be sanctioned for not following the medicare/medicaid regulations.

I don't know where you live or your relationship status, but I am suspicious of anyone who would kick sand in the eye of progress, no matter how "token" it may be. And you are mistaken about the line many are quoting from the memo about the new rule that will go on the books not being enforceable. The memo is correct in saying that a memorandum can not be enforced. But the rule change to medicare and medicaid will certainly be enforced.

President Obama has started the ball rolling for a tremendous gift to most of us - GLBT, unmarried couples, friends, etc.

I'm just so livid reading some of these replies. If you don't like this "token" or it is beneath you, please, don't take advantage of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #188
195. You Don't Understand.
No one is saying that it's not a great thing to allow GLBTers to be beside the bedside of their sick and dying loved ones. What I and a few others are saying is that we doubt that what Obama has SAID is going to happen.

I'll admit I jumped the gun. Based on my past experience with this President, I was all too willing to just dismiss this memo as another empty gesture. It remains to be seen whether or not any regulations with teeth will come out of this. Until that is established either way, I promise not to give Obama any more grief on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
194. This is great news.
Good for him. Finally a win for all of us, instead of his corporate buddies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
197. About fucking time - LONG overdue!
It shouldn't have to be an executive order - it should be the LAW OF THE LAND!

This is but a START.

I won't be "thanking" anybody for what should be an OBVIOUS RIGHT!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
208. great step forward, now let's get to legal/POA for partner
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
213. Here's what I think this might actually mean.
I think it will be very positive in the long run. I think it telegraphs to those who receive federal funds that if they don't comply NOW, they'll face stiffer rules in the future. And I think the majority will work to codify this into their own policies pretty quickly.

There will be a few holdouts, I suppose. There may be some hospital boards who won't be able to get a majority to approve a policy change to get them into compliance with this. But then we can turn our focus on them specifically and force them to join the rest of the country's hospitals and change their policies.

I say it's a good thing. Thank you, Mr. President.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mother Smuckers Donating Member (277 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #213
216. Thanks, I believe and most earnestly HOPE you're right about that. What do you think about
the possibility that this, assuming it becomes accepted policy, will give ammunition to those who don't want us to have equal {marriage} rights? I'm just thinking some on the 'other side' who may have been disposed to let us achieve that will now say "Okay, you can visit your spouse in the hospital...you don't NEED to destroy the holy institution of marriage now" See where I'm coming from here?

Maybe I'm just too jaded or cynical but I always want to think about the negative aspects of anything that seems so great at first blush.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kajsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
217. It's about time!

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Socal31 Donating Member (707 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 01:56 AM
Response to Original message
229. Why, in the f-ing world, would anyone be against this?
Why would you want to control who sees who in a moment of need?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-17-10 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #229
231. Let me tell you a story, a true story:
I know a gay man that found, befriended and then fell in love with another man. The other man had been kicked out of his parent's house, disowned and religiously shunned because he was gay. Literally thrown into the street with only the clothes on his back.

My friend and his lover built a life together. My friend put him through school, which helped his lover land a very high-paying tech job. All was well... until the plague called AIDS came. Though HIV positive, my friend remained very healthy. His lover, not so lucky. AIDS ravaged his body and his mind. My friend called his lover's family--the same family that threw the kid ito the street-- and told them he was dying and if they wanted to see their son again, they needed to come now. Well, come they did.

They came and DEMANDED that the hospital not allow my friend to be with his lover the last days of his life. To boot, they--again, the family that threw the kid into the street-fought for AND WON the kids retirement and 401K. They also demanded that my friend sell the house they bought together. My friend was literally devastated--emotionally, physically, financially. His lover died alone with his fundie family holding vigil over his deathbed, when his life partner, his spouse, his mate... was kept from his deathbed.

And some of you want to know why some of us LGBT persons are not that enthused about this latest fluff piece from our "fierce advocate"? Do you really have to ask?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UndecidedGuy Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
235. Why would anyone think this is a bad thing?
I guess I just assumed anyone could accept a visitor if they were in the hospital.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 16th 2019, 02:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC