WI GOP Governor seeks to strip gay couples hospital visitation rights

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Danno,

I feel like debating over whether or not a specific hospital actually in practice verifies a visitor's identity and relationship to a patient is entirely besides the point. That is not what this topic and debate is fundamentally about. The fact of the matter is that hospitals should check a visitor's identity, and at least in most states should only allow immediate family members visiting rights - whether or not hospitals actually enforce these regulations is another matter, and another debate.

This issue is about gay marriage and rights of gay couples in the face of the law - and it is about certain individuals and groups wanting to strip gay couples of their basic rights that are guaranteed by laws and the constitution to heterosexual married couples. It is about treating gay couples as "not real" couples, since their marriage, according to some, does not fit the traditional and conservative - and, also religious - definition of a marriage. It's not about a hospital here or another there failing to actually check a person's relationship to a patient - the issue is that IF that hospital chose to check the visitor's ID and relationship to the patient in question, and it turned out that the visitor was the patient's gay wife/husband, that person could legally be denied visiting rights because the law does not recognize their marriage as equal to a heterosexual marriage.

I could really give a rat's a** about whether or not Methodist hospital in Brooklyn or Mount Sinai in NYC actually checks for IDs. I do care - deeply - about securing equal rights to all married couples alike, gay or straight. A person lying in a hospital bed should be able to have their spouse, the person they have chose to share their lives with, visit them. Taking away that right because that couple happens to be a same sex couple is absolutely absurd, and more than anything, a total violation against the best interest of the patient. It is pointless, stupid and ignorant - and, more than anything, it is nasty politics.

That is why it does not need to be "politics"

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

They can visit just like any other individual but may not have been granted the right to remain with the patient 24 hours a day. That has since changed after the Obama administration required, among other things, Hospital visitation rights for same-sex partners of hospitals receiving federal funds.

Ah yes...and therein lies the hook. Federal funding, I knew we would get around to that. That is another of the problems and things government is involved in that they should not be.

[rika60607 215]

There you go Danno.

Call them, see if they changed the policy.

Gay woman fights over hospital visitation rights in Miami court

A gay woman not allowed to visit her dying partner at Jackson Memorial Hospital in 2007 hopes a federal judge will allow her claims of emotional distress and negligence to go to trial. As her partner of 17 years slipped into a coma, Janice Langbehn pleaded with doctors and anyone who would listen to let her into the woman’s hospital room. Eight anguishing hours passed before Langbehn would be allowed into Jackson Memorial Hospital’s Ryder Trauma Center. By then, she could only say her final farewell as a priest performed the last rites on 39-year-old Lisa Marie Pond. Jackson staffers advised Langbehn that she could not see Pond earlier because the hospital’s visitation policy in cases of emergency was limited to immediate family and spouses — not partners. In Florida, same-sex marriages or partnerships are not recognized.

I want a hospital name where I can call and ask "how I will be received" if my partner is an inpatient.

I am not interested in calling 1800-Permanente,

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ah yes...and therein lies the hook. Federal funding, I knew we would get around to that. That is another of the problems and things government is involved in that they should not be.

Medicare and Medicaid. Should hospitals not accept patients covered by these programs? Or are you saying that we should just get rid of these programs and let the poor and the elderly go to hell?

[Danno 1,228]

Danno,

I feel like debating over whether or not a specific hospital actually in practice verifies a visitor's identity and relationship to a patient is entirely besides the point. That is not what this topic and debate is fundamentally about. The fact of the matter is that hospitals should check a visitor's identity, and at least in most states should only allow immediate family members visiting rights - whether or not hospitals actually enforce these regulations is another matter, and another debate.

This issue is about gay marriage and rights of gay couples in the face of the law - and it is about certain individuals and groups wanting to strip gay couples of their basic rights that are guaranteed by laws and the constitution to heterosexual married couples. It is about treating gay couples as "not real" couples, since their marriage, according to some, does not fit the traditional and conservative - and, also religious - definition of a marriage. It's not about a hospital here or another there failing to actually check a person's relationship to a patient - the issue is that IF that hospital chose to check the visitor's ID and relationship to the patient in question, and it turned out that the visitor was the patient's gay wife/husband, that person could legally be denied visiting rights because the law does not recognize their marriage as equal to a heterosexual marriage.

I could really give a rat's a** about whether or not Methodist hospital in Brooklyn or Mount Sinai in NYC actually checks for IDs. I do care - deeply - about securing equal rights to all married couples alike, gay or straight. A person lying in a hospital bed should be able to have their spouse, the person they have chose to share their lives with, visit them. Taking away that right because that couple happens to be a same sex couple is absolutely absurd, and more than anything, a total violation against the best interest of the patient. It is pointless, stupid and ignorant - and, more than anything, it is nasty politics.

-Forgive me if I don't see, non-existant hospital visitation problems... as a reason to justify allowing various marriage schemes.

-Why are you limiting your outrage to only Gay couples having their right to marry squelched? There are many other combinations out there who have also had their definition of what marriage is rejected.

In fact, there are whole communities in Utah and other places where this sort of thing is the norm yet not recognized by you and the law.

-We agree people should have at their bedside, who they want, if I were running the show, I would simply limit the number of visitors... not limit the relationship.

-Hospital rules are not nasty politics, most hospitals are directed by private boards.... it has nothing to do with Politics, it has been reported here, that OBAMA was the one who got politics involved when he required a change in visitation rules for all hospitals taking Gov. Money.....but I'm sure you don't mind that lkind of political involvemnt though.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why "only gay couples", Danno?

Lets have a side of red herring to go with that old cheese...

[Danno 1,228]

Why "only gay couples", Danno?

Lets have a side of red herring to go with that old cheese...

Peoples rights are herrings to you?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Your point certainly is.