Obama: ailing gays and lesbians deserve loved ones at their sides - Macleans.ca

Obama: ailing gays and lesbians deserve loved ones at their sides

U.S. hospitals must allow same-sex visiting rights


Barack Obama has issued a new order to state-funded hospitals: they must grant complete visiting rights to same-sex partners. On Thursday night, hours after ordering officials to issue the new regulations, Obama called Florida resident Janice Langbehn to say that he had been motivated, in part, by her story. In 2007, when Langbehn’s partner Lisa Pond was hospitalized with a fatal brain aneurysm, Langbehn was denied visiting rights (along with the four children she had adopted with Pond); Pond later died alone. The President’s orders will also allow gays and lesbians to make medical decisions for their partners. Explained Obama: “Every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindness and caring of a loved one at their sides.”

New York Times

Filed under:

Obama: ailing gays and lesbians deserve loved ones at their sides

  1. If you work in this country and pay your taxes you should have the same rights, freedoms and responsibilities as all other citizens.

  2. I can't believe that this is even an issue. I've been told that, in Alberta, common law couples may face the same treatment. For shame.

  3. Is he still against gay marriage? I know marriage in the US is a state issue, but wouldn't acceptance and adoption of it in many (some?) states gain some traction if he came out (pardon the phrasing) in support of it?

    It's not hard to look around in Canada, and realize pretty much nothing has changed for the worse since same-sex couples were allowed to marry. I just don't understand objections to this.

  4. bekkys of this world still loom large anyway, azz kikckin from both ending

  5. the hospitals should just use common sense, it could be a spounce, partner, parent, friend, or relative that needs into the hospital. it shouldn't be up to the government to decide

    • Clearly they can't be trusted to make that decision or we wouldn't be here.

  6. What people need to realize – and quit being so infuriatingly politically correct about – is that these adopted children are often coming from parents who have their children stolen from them by either gangsters who have discovered there's money to be made in child trafficking or government agencie who have discovered their job is to take children from parents they deem 'unfit.' Social services has way more power to do this than the average person realizes. If you care about your children or grandchildren, you need to find out about this threat. The chances of being stolen by the government or a child 'protection' agency are approximately 1 in 100 and greater, depending on where you live, how much money you make, if you are a single parent, and if you have ever or will ever have a squabble with the type of person who will make a false report to a child protection agency.

    This is the truth that you won't read about in the politically correct, or ignorant, media.

  7. "Langbehn was denied visiting rights (along with the four children she had adopted with Pond)"

    The question that should be getting asked more than it does is this: whose children are those really? Very politically incorrect, I know, to suggest that they do not belong to this lesbian couple, but anyone who knows anything about the world of adoption know that it is rife with corruption (read, for example, The Baby Thief, a well researched account of a singularly sinister baby thief and the popularizer of adoption in America, Georgia Tann – who was, strangely enough – also a lesbian).

    • Would you be asking this question if the couple weren't gay?

  8. The patient should be able to designate anyone they want (up to some reasonable number) to have complete visiting rights.

    Whether that someone is gay, straight, a parent, in or out of a sexual relationship with the patient should have absolutely nothing to do with it.

    • The presidential order actually allows patients to designate who may visit them, with LGBT partners chiefly in mind, but it does not specify that it applies to LGBT partners only– it could be two non-immediate relatives, two platonic friends etc. And the fact that it came "from a political authority" was absolutely necessary precisely because hospital staff have consistently been asinine about this issue and had to have this decision made for them by a greater authority. Nannyism or righting a petty and consistent wrong, I'm glad he did it.

    • Dude, you got pwned.