Update on hospital visitation case: Toward a successful resolution

Out & About Newspaper reported today that Val Burke had been denied the ability to visit her partner at Rolling Hills Hospital in Franklin. 

TEP learned about the case last night from Out & About when they were seeking comment.  So we immediately went to work.  At about 9:00 p.m. on Sunday I contacted Rolling Hills and spoke with a receptionist.  I explained the situation and asked her whether they participate in Medicare/Medicaid.  They do, which is no surprise.  But it's a critical point because, based on recent federal Health and Human Services regulations, all facilities that participate in Medicare/Medicaid must grant equal visitation, meaning a patient has the right to choose who visits him or her. 

The receptionist transferred me to the voice mail of one of the administrators and I explained the incident I was aware of, cited the regulation, and made it clear that if the incident had occurred that they "can't do that." 

Today I got a call from another administrator who said that she had held a meeting with their leadership team and explained the regulation.  She indicated that things would change.

So far so good.  I had an email exchange with Val today and she reported that the hospital had contacted her about arranging visitation.

The regulation is still relatively new, so it's likely that these kinds of incidents will unfortunately continue to occur.  It's incredibly frightening and enraging to experience something like Val went through.  Fortunately, once the regulation is pointed out, I would expect most health facilities to comply.  It is clear that we all need to do more to educate the health care industry about this important policy change.

In the mean time, we're all relieved for Val and her partner.  I'm personally grateful for administrators who "get it" the minute something like this is brought to their attention.

-Chris Sanders

I was going to take a nap before Paul Stanley had to mention Tiger Woods

After a long week that included a couple of political disappointments, I thought I would take a nap late this afternoon. But then I glanced at a Facebook post by Mr. Kleinheider. It was a link to this post at the Tennessean's political blog pointing out that former State Sen. Paul Stanley had decided to say a few words about Tiger Woods and the public's consumption of his recent scandals.

The former senator says, “Is it sim­ply our desire to know what goes on within the four walls of celebri­ties’ bed­rooms that enthrall us or are we just as curi­ous about what goes on with Mike and Jane next door? ”

No!

Neither the Tennessean piece nor Stanley's piece points out the obvious. This is a self-involved and misleading piece not just because of Stanley's own troubles, but because he introduced legislation that would harm others based on their relationships. SB0078, the bill that would ban individuals in a cohabitating sexual relationship from adopting children, is unavoidable background to Stanley's fall from the Senate. That detail is missing from the Tiger Woods story.

Perhaps the People-magazine reading crowd was interested in the senator, the intern, the intern's boyfriend, the camera, and the extortion. But what made Stanley's situation so notable is that it exposed the closeted sexuality of those who try to impose restrictions on others.

There was definitely a segment of the public that didn't really care about learning every detail of Stanley's scandal. The part that mattered the most to many of us is the fact that he pinned the ability to adopt on a certain definition of proper relationships. People, straight or gay, who live together but don't have a legal marriage in Tennessee, are not worthy, according to Stanley's legislation.

Maybe the golfers and the other retired right-wing state senators now living in exile in Franklin are nodding as they read Stanley's post, but I don't recommend that he try to sell it in the rest of the state, especially Shelby and Davidson Counties. We remember what he did. Redemption will come when he makes amends not just for the affair, but also for attempt to make us second-class citizens in the law.

-Chris Sanders

Racist vandalism in Franklin

WSMV is reporting on racist words painted on an electric box in a Franklin neighborhood named after KKK founder Nathan Bedford Forrest. The words are likely directed at the two African American families who live in the neighborhood.

"Oh, it's so hurtful; so hurtful. I cannot even let my kids go outside due to this. They cannot go outside until something is done," said Audrey Burks.

People in the neighborhood feel powerless to do anything about it and the police to have few options.

"I know at this point, there's really nothing you can do except to make it known to the rest of the community that this is something that's not acceptable," [the Rev. Anthony] Hendricks said. Police in Franklin took a report on the graffiti but said they believe it's an isolated incident. Police have not received any similar reports.

That's probably because they don't have adequate resources to deal with hate crimes. But if Congress had passed and the President had signed the Matthew Shepard Act last year, then they might be able to access the resources they need. On this blog, we've mostly talked about Shepard in terms of its addition of sexual orientation and gender identity to hate crimes laws. And most of the opposition has focused on the fear of making thought a crime, which the Act doesn't do at all.

However, the reason local law enforcement agents and communities in Tennessee should get behind Shepard is that it would provide more resources to fight all hate crimes regardless of their classification, including crimes of racial bias. Not only would money be available but other valuable forms of assistance as well. Consider section 4 of the act:

(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-

(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--

(A) constitutes a crime of violence;

(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or Tribal laws; and

(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws.

(2) PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.

Notice the priority for rural jurisdictions. It's time to pass this legislation. Let's hope that Senators Alexander and Corker can find a way to get on board when it comes up again and let's hope that House and Senate Democrats can stop wrangling over attaching it to a defense bill.

Otherwise, we're going to be left with solutions like this:

The homeowners association is going to look into how to remove the paint.