Fresno Hospital Bars Lesbian From Visiting Partner And Giving Advice About Her Treatment, ACLU and NCLR Urge Hospital To Adopt Policies Respecting Same-Sex Relationships
“We just couldn’t believe this was happening to us. This was the nightmare that we hoped we’d never have to live through,” said Teresa Rowe, who grew up in Clovis, California, but now lives in the Bay Area with her partner of four years, Kristin Orbin. “Unfortunately, because Kristin suffers from epilepsy, trips to the hospital are pretty common for us, which is why we filled out the legal paper work to make sure I would be able to be with her and make emergency decisions about her care. But the hospital wouldn’t let me see Kristen and ignored my advice about her treatment. They ended up giving her the exact medication I repeatedly asked them not to give her.”
On May 29, 2009, Rowe and Orbin attended the “Meet in the Middle” rally in support of marriage for same-sex couples in Fresno. After the couple completed a 14-mile march in 90 degree heat, Orbin, who suffers from epilepsy, collapsed in a seizure. The couple experienced hostility from the ambulance driver, but Rowe was ultimately allowed to accompany Orbin to Community Regional Medical Center in Fresno. However, when the couple got the hospital, the driver would not allow Rowe to accompany Orbin into the emergency room even though Orbin had been in and out of consciousness, and Rowe was familiar with her medical history and care.
Rowe repeatedly asked hospital employees to allow her to see Orbin and talk to a physician about her care but was refused. She volunteered to have Orbin’s legal paperwork naming Rowe as her health care agent faxed to the hospital but was told that it wouldn’t do any good. When she asked that she at least be allowed to pass along the message that Orbin not be given the drug Ativan, she was told the message would be conveyed. If the message was given to those treating Orbin, it was ignored because Orbin was given the drug, which she didn’t need and which causes her unnecessary pain. Meanwhile, when she was awake, Orbin was also asking to be allowed to see Rowe. Although they were both told that no visitors were allowed in the area where Orbin was being treated, other patients were receiving guests. After being separated for several hours, Orbin finally saw her doctor. She complained to him, and Rowe was eventually allowed to be with her.
“Until the California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8, Kristen and Teresa were planning to get married. In this climate, hospitals must be especially diligent to protect same-sex couples from discrimination,” said Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. “As these events so painfully demonstrate, no matter what hoops same-sex couples jump through to protect their relationships, these kinds of horrible things will continue to happen as long as couples are denied the recognition and respect that only comes with marriage.”
The letter sent by the ACLU and NCLR charges that it was a violation of state law for the hospital to discriminate against the couple based on their sexual orientation, as well as to refuse to recognize Rowe’s legal authority, which was authorized by Orbin’s advance health care directive. The letter also notes that hospitals must post and follow a patient’s bill of rights that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation and grants patients the ability to designate visitors of their choosing and to decide who is able to make emergency decision about their care. The letter urges Community Medical Centers immediately to affirm their commitment to inclusive and sensitive medical care for LGBT patients, and to take a number of steps to carry out that commitment.
“Discrimination in healthcare settings is still far too common for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people,” said Jason Schneider, MD, President of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA). “No one is served when partners are barred from visitation and kept from participating in conversations about their loved one’s care. It’s bad for doctors who are kept from potentially life threatening information, it’s bad for partners who are left waiting hopelessly in the waiting rooms and it’s especially traumatic for patients who need the love and support that only their partners can provide to help them through health care emergencies.”
A copy of the letter, which gives the hospital until June 22nd to respond, is available at http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/39854res20090615.html.
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/fresno-hospit…
California School Apologizes For Illegally Banning Sixth Grader’s Presentation On Harvey Milk
RAMONA, CA – A California school has apologized to a sixth grader for illegally censoring her classroom presentation about Harvey Milk last month, and school officials promise they won’t engage in unconstitutional restriction of similar free speech in the future. The apology comes after the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter on May 30 to the Ramona Unified School District about its violation of the student’s free speech rights when it refused to allow her to give the presentation in class. Wrongly citing a school policy on sex education, the school had improperly required classmates to get parental permission to see the presentation during a lunch recess. The student was allowed to give her presentation in class this morning.
“Harvey Milk always stood up for his beliefs and what was right, so I felt like I should do the same thing when my school told me they wouldn’t let me do my presentation,” said Natalie Jones, a sixth grader at Mt. Woodson Elementary School. “I worked really hard on my presentation and I’m glad I’m finally going to get to share it with all of my classmates like everyone else got to.”
The assignment, part of an independent research project class, was to prepare a written report on any topic. Natalie, who was inspired to write about Harvey Milk after watching Sean Penn win an Academy Award for portraying him, got a score of 49 out of a possible 50 points on the written report. Students were then told to make PowerPoint presentations about their reports, which they would show to other students in the class. The day before Natalie was to give her 12-page presentation she was called into the principal’s office and told she couldn’t do so. When her mother spoke with the superintendent about the presentation, she was told Natalie couldn’t give her presentation because of a district board policy on “Family Life/Sex Education.” A few days later, the school sent letters to parents of students in the class, explaining that her presentation would be held during a lunch recess on May 8, and that students could only attend if they had parental permission due to the allegedly “sensitive” nature of the topic.
“Instead of quaking at the mere mention of an LGBT person’s existence, schools must understand that talking about someone who happens to be gay is no more sexual in nature than talking about a person who happens to be heterosexual,” said David Blair-Loy, Legal Director of the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties. “Censoring Natalie’s presentation violated the First Amendment and the California Education Code, and we’re pleased she will finally get to give her presentation on a historical figure who was such a fierce advocate for the rights of not just LGBT Californians but of all people.”
* The school has apologized in writing to Natalie and sent a letter about that apology to all the parents who were sent the school’s letter about the presentation.
* The school allowed Natalie to give her presentation to all the other members of her independent research project class.
* The school has agreed to bring its “Family Life/Sex Education” policy into compliance with state law, and acknowledged that the mention or acknowledgement of a person’s sexual orientation is not sufficient to invoke the statutes and policies on sex education.
“If the school had taken a moment to consider its legal obligation to respect and uphold its students’ free speech rights instead of jumping to erroneous conclusions and trying to justify its actions by wrongly conflating Natalie’s historical presentation with sex education, this would never have happened,” said Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU national LGBT Project. “There’s a tremendous difference between sex education and writing or talking about someone who happens to be gay, and we’re glad we were able to help the school finally understand that.”
“I’m always proud of my daughter, of course, but I’m even more proud of her for the way she stood up for her rights,” said Bonnie Jones, Natalie’s mother. “We’ve also heard from many people in town and other parents at Natalie’s school who have been amazingly supportive. I think if Harvey Milk were still here today, he’d be happy about how this all worked out.”
Harvey Milk, one of Time Magazine’s “Time 100 Heroes and Icons of the 20th Century” in 1999, has been the subject of several books, an opera, a documentary film that won the 1984 Academy Award for Documentary Feature, and a feature film released last year that won two Academy Awards for Best Original Screenplay and Best Actor. Milk’s birthday is the subject of a bill pending in the California legislature that would make it a state holiday.
For additional information, including a video featuring an interview with Natalie, copies of the school’s apology to Natalie and its letter to parents of students in her class, Natalie’s presentation on Harvey Milk, the school’s letter to parents, and the Ramona U.S.D. “Family Life/Sex Education” policy, can be found online at www.aclu.org/milk
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/california-sc…
High School Student Takes On Anti-Gay Harassment — And Wins
ACLU Reaches Agreement With School District To Combat Bias After Lesbian Student Is Harassed By Teachers
VALLEJO, CA – The American Civil Liberties Union announced today that it has reached a settlement agreement with the Vallejo City Unified School District on behalf of a high school student who faced anti-gay harassment and discrimination from teachers and school staff and was required to participate in a school-sponsored “counseling” group designed to discourage students from being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. The settlement is designed to combat harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity at all the district’s schools, and includes district-wide anti-harassment training for students and staff.
“All I ever wanted was to be able to go to school and just be myself. But I couldn’t do that when the people I was supposed to be learning from were judging me and telling me something was wrong with me. How was I supposed to learn when I was constantly scared?” said Hamilton, a high school student who came out as a lesbian when she was 13.
For Rochelle Hamilton, starting high school was the beginning of relentless verbal harassment and discrimination from teachers and staff based on her sexual orientation and gender expression. Hamilton began attending Vallejo’s Jesse Bethel High School as a sophomore in the fall of 2007. The verbal attacks started almost immediately, and continued for months.
Hamilton became severely depressed and her grades plummeted. Worried for her daughter, Hamilton’s mother, Cheri Hamilton, repeatedly wrote letters, made phone calls, and met in person with school and district officials for several months. After three months of outreach to the school and the district, Cheri Hamilton contacted the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California for help. The ACLU intervened to resolve the matter with the school district.
Hamilton reports that while some of the harassment she suffered came from other students, most of the time it came from school teachers and staff. Specific incidents included:
· A teacher approached Hamilton while she was hugging her girlfriend and said, “This is ungodly, and you’re going to hell. This is a sin.”
· Another teacher said, “What’s wrong with you? What are you, a man or a woman?”
· Other school staff made repeated harassing comments to Hamilton in front of her classmates, including saying, “it’s not right to be this way.”
· Hamilton was also on several occasions denied access to the girls’ locker room.
“California school districts are required by state law to protect students from harassment and discrimination, including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity,” said Elizabeth Gill, an ACLU-NC staff attorney who worked with the district on the settlement. “If a school district ignores anti-gay bias in schools, it is plainly violating both state and federal law. These laws are designed, in part, to ensure that all students are able to learn and thrive free from bias. When it’s left unchecked, harassment can take a serious toll on students.”
One of the most egregious incidents in this case involved a school counselor who required Hamilton to attend a special weekly support group for gay students. The real purpose of the group was quickly revealed, however, when the counselor berated students for “choosing” to be gay and tried to convince them to change their sexual orientation or gender expression. The counselor told the students that it is “hard to get a job if you’re gay.” When Hamilton’s mother went to school officials about the “counseling” group, the counselor confronted Hamilton the next week, telling her, “You’re going to get this treatment your whole life. What are you going to do, stand up every time?”
“The district-wide anti-harassment training will make Vallejo schools a more welcoming place to learn for all students,” said Jory Steele, ACLU-NC’s managing attorney. “District administrators made the right move in taking important steps to protect its students from bias.”
Hamilton transferred out of Jesse Bethel High School midway through her sophomore year to escape the daily harassment. She is now completing her junior year at another high school in the district.
Pursuant to the five-year agreement reached with the ACLU, the district will adopt a clear policy explicitly prohibiting discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, as required by California law; develop a specific procedure for harassment and discrimination complaints; provide mandatory training for all teachers and other staff who interact with students in how to identify anti-gay harassment and discrimination, why it’s harmful, and how to prevent it; and provide mandatory anti-harassment training to all students in the district, as well as taking other steps to make the district a more welcoming environment for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/high-school-s…
Arizona School Agrees To Lift Rainbow Ban Following ACLU Demands; Gay Student Now Allowed To Wear Wristband
Quintanilla contacted the ACLU in February after her son Chris’s principal told her he wouldn’t allow her son to wear his cloth wristband with words “Rainbows are gay” to school anymore. Last week, the school finally gave assurances to the ACLU that it would not censor Quintanilla’s wristband in the future.
“Students have a constitutional right to free speech at school, and school officials should be aware of their responsibility for upholding this cornerstone of our freedom,” said Elizabeth Gill, staff attorney for the ACLU national Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project. “This district was right to come to its senses and back down from violating the First Amendment, because students have 40 years of Supreme Court precedent on their side when schools do this kind of thing.”
In its letter, the ACLU reminded PUSD officials about the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines in which the Court wrote, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights… at the schoolhouse gate.” The letter also pointed to Gillman v. Holmes County School District, a Florida case in which a high school principal had attempted to ban symbols in support of LGBT rights, including rainbows, at school. In that case, a federal judge ruled last May that the school had violated students’ First Amendment rights. Both cases were handled by the ACLU, which celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Tinker decision in February.
“The schools we entrust to teach our children about society and their freedoms should know better than to violate one of our most fundamental freedoms,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona. “We’re glad that PUSD has seen the light about this, but we’re going to be keeping an eye on this district and hold them to their word that they’ll respect the First Amendment from now on.”
The letter the ACLU sent to the district last month is available here:
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/lgbt/schoolsyouth/az_armb_letter.pdf.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/arizona-schoo…
Attorneys Urge California Supreme Court To Invalidate Prop 8
(San Francisco, CA, March 5, 2009) Attorneys for same-sex couples, civil rights organizations and the state Attorney General’s office appeared before the California Supreme Court today to urge the court to strike down Proposition 8, which took away the right of same-sex couples the right to marry. At issue in the case is whether the ballot initiative process can be used to take away a fundamental right only for one group of Californians based on a trait – in this case sexual orientation – that has no relevance to the group’s ability to participate in or contribute to society. Because the case has serious implications for the constitutional rights of all Californians, it has generated unprecedented support from many national and state civil rights groups as well as California legislators, local governments, bar associations, business interests, labor unions, and religious groups. The California Supreme Court, which has struck down several other initiatives in the past, is expected to issue a decision within 90 days.
“Proposition 8 jeopardizes not just the right of same-sex couples to marry, but the rights of all Californians to be treated as free and equal citizens of this state,” said Shannon P. Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), who argued the case before the Court. “Our Constitution is based on the principle that majorities must respect minority rights. But if a majority can change the Constitution to take away a fundamental right from one group, then it can take away fundamental rights from any group. Our government will have changed from one that respects minority rights to one in which the power of the majority is unlimited.”
NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU filed the legal challenge on November 5, after Proposition 8 was approved by just 52 percent of the voters on Election Day. In court today, the groups argued that it was improper for the proponents of Proposition 8 to use the ballot initiative process to strip same-sex couples of the fundamental right to marry. The groups contend that changes to the Constitution that alter its core requirement of equal protection by selectively depriving minorities of fundamental constitutional rights cannot be accomplished through a simple majority vote. Such major changes of core structural principles are revisions to the Constitution that can only be put on the ballot by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature.
“It is simply wrong—legally and socially—to short-circuit the California Constitution and its equal protection guarantees,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal and co-counsel in the legal challenge to Proposition 8. “Proposition 8 is no ‘garden variety’ amendment that changes a tax or zoning or safety rule in a way that affects everyone equally. This is a radical attempt to strip a cherished constitutional right from just one targeted minority group and then to stop the courts from doing their most basic job of upholding the constitutional promise of ‘liberty and justice for all’.”
The case before the court is unprecedented because no other initiative-amendment has successfully taken away a fundamental right only for a particular minority. Because Proposition 8 would, for the first time, change the Constitution in a way that strips a minority group of its constitutional right to equal treatment under the law, California Attorney General Jerry Brown agrees that Proposition 8 should be struck down. The Attorney General’s office argued that the right to marry is an “inalienable right” that can not be selectively eliminated from one group without compelling reasons.
“The Court has a solemn responsibility to enforce our state constitution and to protect the rights of all people, regardless of popular opinion,” said Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. “This case isn’t just about marriage, and it’s certainly not just about gay and lesbian couples. If the Court strikes down Proposition 8, it will be protecting the civil rights of all Californians.”
An unprecedented 43 friend-of-the-court briefs, representing hundreds of religious organizations, civil rights groups, and labor unions, and numerous California municipal governments, bar associations, and leading legal scholars, were filed in the case, urging the court to strike down the initiative. Because the issues at stake have such important implications for other minority groups, Raymond Marshall of Bingham McCutchen, who represents the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the California State Conference of the NAACP, the Equal Justice Society, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, asked and was given permission to appear in court today. He argued that allowing Proposition 8 to stand could be detrimental to other minority groups who could easily become the targets of initiative campaigns seeking to take away their rights.
“Our state Constitution was created to ensure equal treatment under the law for every Californian,” said Geoff Kors, Executive Director of Equality California. “Prop 8 changes that fact by taking away a fundamental freedom from one particular group and mandating government discrimination against a minority. We hope the court upholds the Constitution’s promise of equality.”
The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU are representing Equality California, whose members include many same-sex couples who married between June 16 and November 4, 2008, and six same-sex couples who want to marry in California. The arguments today also included two other challenges filed on the same day: one filed by the City and County of San Francisco (joined by Santa Clara County and the City of Los Angeles, and subsequently by Los Angeles County and other local governments); and another filed by a private attorney.
Serving as co-counsel on the case with NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU are the Law Office of David C. Codell, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.
The case is Strauss et al. v. Horton et al. (#S168047). For more information, go to: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm
The California Supreme Court must issue its decisions within 90 days of oral argument.
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/attorneys-urg…
NEW FILING IN PROP 8 LEGAL CHALLENGE: Reply brief reiterates that Prop 8 should be struck down
(San Francisco, California, January 5, 2009) — Today, the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Lambda Legal filed a reply brief in the California Supreme Court, the next step in the lawsuit seeking to overturn Proposition 8, which passed by a mere 52 percent on November 4. The brief argues that Proposition 8 is invalid because it seeks to eliminate a fundamental right only for a targeted minority, which cannot be done through the initiative process. The brief also agrees with California Attorney General Jerry Brown that certain fundamental rights, including the right to marry, are inalienable and can not be put up for a popular vote. The brief also argues —again in agreement with the Attorney General — that Proposition 8 cannot be applied to invalidate existing marriages because new laws and amendments are presumed to apply only on a prospective basis. “If Prop 8 is permitted to stand, it would be the first time an initiative has successfully been used to change the California Constitution to take away an existing right only from a historically targeted minority group,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “Such a change would defeat the very purpose of a constitution and fundamentally alter the role of the courts in protecting minority rights.” On November 19, 2008, the California Supreme Court granted review in the legal challenges to Proposition 8, and established an expedited briefing schedule, under which briefing will be completed in January 2009, with amicus curiae or “friend-of-the-court” briefs due on January 15. Oral argument potentially could be held as early as March 2009. Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU, added “Prop 8 is a radical and unprecedented change to the California Constitution that puts all Californians at risk. It actually mandates government discrimination against a minority.” In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that laws that treat people differently based on their sexual orientation violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and that same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry as other Californians. Proposition 8 would completely eliminate this fundamental right only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group. “Prop 8 is not valid and never has been,” said Jennifer Pizer, Lambda Legal National Marriage Project Director. “California’s Equal Protection clause was not written in sand, to be erased by shifting political tides. It’s a solid guarantee that we all have the same rights and it’s the foundation of our government. Exceptions can’t be carved by simple majority vote or the equality guarantee becomes a discrimination guarantee. No initiative can cause such a profound change in our legal system.” NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU filed this challenge on November 5, representing Equality California, whose members include many same-sex couples who married between June 16 and November 4, 2008, and six same-sex couples who want to marry in California. The California Supreme Court has also agreed to hear two other challenges filed on the same day: one filed by the City and County of San Francisco (joined by Santa Clara County and the City of Los Angeles, and subsequently by Los Angeles County and other local governments); and another filed by a private attorney. These three cases are jointly under review by the California Supreme Court. Serving as co-counsel on the case with NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU are the Law Office of David C. Codell, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. For more information on this case, go to: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm ### The National Center for Lesbian Rights is a national legal organization committed to advancing the civil and human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their families through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education. www.nclrights.org Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work. www.lambdalegal.org
The American Civil Liberties Union is America’s foremost advocate of individual rights. It fights discrimination and moves public opinion on LGBT rights through the courts, legislatures and public education. www.aclu.org
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-filing-in…
