In April 2010 President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum protecting the visitation rights for gays and lesbians in the hospitals. In this Memorandum he states:
“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 onsequences. 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.”
This Memorandum made visitation rights a national issue, ensuring them from a federal level rather than at the state level at which the decision had originally been made. As Obama stated, it’s only humane that these rights be provided.
Now, Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney wants to return that power to the states if he were to take office. He claims that visitation rights are a privileged rather than a right and not something someone should necessarily be entitled to. We know he is already against gay marriage, but now he wants to deny visits in hospitals by loved ones for gays and lesbians. That is a bit harsh. But is this an anti-gay movement or does it have more to do with returning power to the states? His campaign adviser says “Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children.”
To me it seems more of an anti-federalist thought process, one which I struggle with this on a personal level. While I feel equal rights such as hospital visitations should be offered to all, I have an issue with how much government currently has it’s fingers in seemingly every decision or choice we have as citizens. This to me seems to be slowly taking away our rights, but at the same time it secures other rights to individuals who at a state level would be denied them in some area’s and not others. There is a fine line between creating equality and enforcing it.
Our authors want to hear from you! Click to leave a comment
Related Posts
What scares me is that half the country is going to vote for a guy who said “medicaid is for the poor” without any compassion in his demeanor or voice. Compassion should be the number one requirement for leadeship.
You should be ashamed using the emotions of Gays and Lesbians and their supporters with this article. You clearly intended to inflame people and congratulations! because most will see this headline and not read any further or bother to look at the actual Memorandum to see what hype you have written here.
You Mr. BJ, sometime comments like that aren’t needed. If fact being a gay male I like to see that people care an want to inform this world of the bull shit that might lay ahead. An if people don’t read further it means they don’t care, An you should be ASHAMED for not want people to know what is happen in this world !! Time to get out from under the rock !
And what hype would that be? There is nothing untrue here and it is consistent with current events and movements. No hype or emotions were played to except that of fairness. Georgianna takes care to give the benefit of the doubt, claiming it might not be an anti-gay rights but a movement away from federalist power. Thought provoking yes, inflammatory no.
It’s complete hype and misrepresentation. Obama has authorized NOTHING- an Executive Memorandum IS NOT A LAW- WE ARE NOT A DICTATORSHIP WITH PRESIDENTIAL RULE BY DECREE. It was simply a political statement by the President, without real power. Relegating to States- which is still current law under the CONSTITUTION- is what Mitt supports. It’s already the truth- Mitt is simplying reinforcing what already exists. There is nothing to repeal- Obama’s memo has no real legal weight. That takes an act of Congress- seperation of powers, a key part of our governing system. Given Mitt’s need to cater to religous right, it’s actually courageous he not supporting an outright ban- just as illegal at Fed level as support- and instead endorsing it as a state by state issue. Personally, I’m for it- no reason to stop consenting adults to be denied rights. I’m also devoted to Constitutional freedoms. More and more States are acknowleding the rights of partners regardless of orientation, just as they are recognizing other liberties such as the right to bear arms, and I for one am thankful that the Feds cannot overreach.
Should I capitalize certain words in order to make a better point Michael? Originally I was going to disagree but then I saw that you capitalize it so I realized I was wrong 😉 I jest of course. It’s odd that you remark on how considerate it is for Romney not to just ban something he doesn’t agree with. A) I don’t think he won’t. B) that’s also not his prerogative. When it comes to the rights of the states I can understand your argument. However, I still disagree. If the states were able to decide other things on their own we might still be facing difficulties for those in interracial and inter religion marriages, right to bare arms(not to be confused with the right to have bear arms), and alcohol/drug legalities. There might be difference of opinions of what constitutes rape, what help people are entitled to and who knows what else. What I’m trying to get to is that human equality is not something we should settle on a state level. There should be no question of its universalism.
The word choice was deliberate, and the title is taken from the original article itself. The point here is that Romney himself suggests the rights should be given BACK to the states, yet the memorandum itself never took those rights away as you stated. Instead, it just gave a rather strong suggestion that hospitals and other settings accepting Medicare and Medicaid (thus hospitals in all states) should abide by the rule of equality in letting family and loved ones see sick individuals regardless of relationship or sexuality. A rule here being at a hospital level, and a right being the right to equality and seeing ones loved one in a time of fear, need, and poor health. If Romney seems to say that these rights were taken away by a memorandum then shouldn’t we address it in that context?
The title is misleading. To take something away, something must be granted. Obama’s order did not grant any rights- it iis legally uneforceable. He cannot deny reimbursement to hospitals without full due process hearings. and a Presidental decree does not have force of law (thank G-d, or we’d be in a dictatorship.) Romney is not taking away anything, either- he is recoginzing State’s rights, which the reality to begin with. Romney’s statement is that this a state’s rights issue- for someone who may need hard-core religous right support, not calling for outright ban is courageous. How can Romney remove something that is not even granted? How is it denial to say I’m letting the States decide? Which is per Constitution, btw.
I fully support consenting adults of any persuasion to have marriage rights, as well as visitation. Universal application of rights is wonderful- but it’s not the law, and it is not reality, nor ever will be unless humanity acheives a totalitarian one-world state (and will that be all good? Got to wonder…). Whatever powers are not granted to Federal government are left to States- that is our Constitution. Gun rights still vary state to state; so do drug use laws, medical marijuana laws, criminal laws of all types, social work license laws, etc. This is no differnent- if you don’t like your States’ approach, advocate.
I personally prefer the Constitutional approach that denying gay marriage is a violation of personal liberty as gaurneteed by Consitution, and therefore can be a Federal issue.
But considering Mitt’s personal oppositon to homosexuality, and his religous right to believe that way, the fact that he is not advocating outright ban is a plus. And much more honest than Barry Hussein’s pretense at passing a law, which, smart guy he that he is, knows is simply politicaly posturing without real teeth.