President Obama Tells Federal Agency To Estabish Rule Barring Hospitals From Denying Visitation to Gay, Lesbian Partners

[MsTinkerbelly]

Obama Mandates Hospital Visitation Rights For LGBT Couples

President Obama tonight ordered the Department of Health & Human Services to prohibit hospitals from discriminating against LGBT couples when it comes to visitations rights.
Administration officials and gay activists, who have been quietly working together on the issue, said the new rule will affect any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding, a move that covers the vast majority of the nation's health-care institutions. It is currently common policy in many hospitals that only those related by blood or marriage be allowed to visit patients. "Discrimination touches every facet of the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, including at times of crisis and illness, when we need our loved ones with us more than ever," Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in praising the decision. Obama's actions are the latest attempt by his administration to advance the agenda of a constituency that strongly supported his presidential campaign.
It's not yet clear how gay couples will establish the validity of their relationships to hospitals, as most do not yet have one that is legally recognized. A side effect to this otherwise very welcome move by the president is that it removes one of the most compelling arguments for marriage equality.
UPDATE: Here's the wording from the first section of the order. "Legally valid advance directives" will be required, apparently.

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

[Cyclopea]

Another memo.... requesting more fact-finding... to be followed up at an unspecified later date...

[Soon]

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BGb--BfUgg&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- President Obama Orders Same-Sex Hospital Visits[/nomedia]

[MsDemeanor]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

A side effect to this otherwise very welcome move by the president is that it removes one of the most compelling arguments for marriage equality.

I would counter that argument with the argument that it still requires non-married partners to 1) pay for a legal document and 2) have that document in their possession at all times. There is financial cost and an extra burden, neither of which are required for legally married persons (unless hospitals are asking to see folks' marriage licenses before letting them visit).

[Jess]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

I would counter that argument with the argument that it still requires non-married partners to 1) pay for a legal document and 2) have that document in their possession at all times. There is financial cost and an extra burden, neither of which are required for legally married persons (unless hospitals are asking to see folks' marriage licenses before letting them visit).

Absolutely agree. Sure would be easier if we could just get married.

I am not exactly sure how private businesses can be mandated when we are told that marriage would have to vary from state to state. Not sure if that made sense, but what I am trying to understand is how the government can make rules affecting private business when they supposedly can't even make a federal mandate for gay marriage.

I made mention on another thread that Obama should make a human rights amendment. I guess I should have worded it better to say that I wish he would PUSH for one. He certainly does have the right to submit legislature and use his presidential powers to "strongly encourage" passage of bills, legalese, etc. I may have liked it better when he was still going to his old church. The strongly opinionated pastor may have been an asshat, but that church supports gay marriage. It is my understanding that at some point after his election Mr. Obama made the statement that his religious beliefs do not allow for gay marriage. I know before election he seemed to be very pro- gay equal rights.

I fear like others, this being just another reason we "don't need gay marriage".

[MsDemeanor]

Originally Posted by Jess

I am not exactly sure how private businesses can be mandated when we are told that marriage would have to vary from state to state. Not sure if that made sense, but what I am trying to understand is how the government can make rules affecting private business when they supposedly can't even make a federal mandate for gay marriage.

The government isn't telling them how to run their business. They're telling them that if they want Medicare/Medicade money, these are the rules. It's kinda like when the feds told states that if they wanted federal money for their highways then they had to lower the speed limit. The states didn't have to lower the limit if they didn't want the money.

I think it's a neat way to handle the problem.

[SuperFemme]

Abolish DADT and DOMA and I'll call it a steak.

[Heart]

Despite the loonies, the conservatives and Repubs are offering little objection to this policy and it enjoys broad public support - as it should. But what that means is that Obama is taking the least controversial path when it comes to the rights of lgbtq people. I think this move actually signals his ongoing lack of support for same-sex marriage.

[Bit]

I think it enjoys such broad public support because it doesn't just apply to us, but to all patients. It clearly says that "patients" will have the right to designate visitors, whether those visitors are blood relatives or not--and believe me, straight people in long-term unmarried relationships can have the same problems we have (being kept away from their partners in the hospital) if the partners' families object. I've known some straight people who were pretty badly traumatized by that.

What the long-term ramifications of this legal action will be for our community, I don't know. I do think it establishes a legal precedent both for patients' rights and for all patients being equal. Here's hoping it sets a precedent for all people being equal in other legal ways as well!

[Jess]

Cross posting this on same sex marriage updates.... I think it is very important for us to realize that until we really are treated "equally", this sort of thing can and will continue to happen.

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/04/sono...couple_and.php

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

I would counter that argument with the argument that it still requires non-married partners to 1) pay for a legal document and 2) have that document in their possession at all times. There is financial cost and an extra burden, neither of which are required for legally married persons (unless hospitals are asking to see folks' marriage licenses before letting them visit).

While I agree with you as a person who reads and pays attention to what is actually said in the article, there will be MANY people who either "hear" about it, or read through it quickly and believe that we have been granted some broad set of new rights. One of our (my) arguments for same-sex marriage (Hospital/medical decision making) then becomes moot in their minds, thus beginning an education process that we should not have had to do again.

In his (Obamas) efforts to throw us a bone, I believe he has harmed us immeasurably. That is however just my personal take on the situation. I thought it reprehensible that CNN had a Poll this weekend asking if President Obama did the right thing. CNN....asking if people think minorities should have rights. Sigh.... We have such a long way to go...