I know that as your friendly neighborhood Indiana technology counsel, I usually post wonderful things about privacy litigation (look to see my blog on the Supreme Court taking up a case of privacy expectation in texting) and other fun cyberspace law, but today I'm going to digress for just a bit. Indiana Senate Bill 192 has recently been introduced by State Senator Sue Errington (D-Delaware County) and would govern how a hospital applies visitation rights in a domestic partnership situation (www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2010/IN/IN0192.1.html) The bill is not aimed at a distinction based on sexual orientation and does a good job of defining "domestic partnership" without going to the obvious. Further, it allows a hospital to still govern the needs of the patient and implement rules accordingly. What it stops is arbitrary and capricious denial of access to a loved one simply because the relationship between them is not familial, marriage, or civil union.
I believe that this law is a direct result of the 2007 Court of Appeals decision of In Re the Guardianship of Patrick Atkins (www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06270701jgb.pdf), which is a heart-wrenching decision that I think is right under the current law, but is a wake-up call to change the law. It is definitely worth a read.
Regardless of your opinion on same-sex relationships and the rights that they should or should not be afforded, Senate Bill 192 is a logical and reasonable approach to a heated argument. No matter what rights are ultimately given to domestic partnerships (same-sex or otherwise), a person should have access to their loved ones when they are in the hospital. So if you are in Indiana, I hope you'll give Bill 192 a read and if you agree with it, call your representative and say so. If you are not in Indiana, I hope that you'll take a read of Atkins and this law and see what potential pitfalls are out there and if you are so inclined, call your representative.
I promise to geek out next time.
I believe that this law is a direct result of the 2007 Court of Appeals decision of In Re the Guardianship of Patrick Atkins (www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06270701jgb.pdf), which is a heart-wrenching decision that I think is right under the current law, but is a wake-up call to change the law. It is definitely worth a read.
Regardless of your opinion on same-sex relationships and the rights that they should or should not be afforded, Senate Bill 192 is a logical and reasonable approach to a heated argument. No matter what rights are ultimately given to domestic partnerships (same-sex or otherwise), a person should have access to their loved ones when they are in the hospital. So if you are in Indiana, I hope you'll give Bill 192 a read and if you agree with it, call your representative and say so. If you are not in Indiana, I hope that you'll take a read of Atkins and this law and see what potential pitfalls are out there and if you are so inclined, call your representative.
I promise to geek out next time.



Comments for Non-technology blog entry - Indiana Senate Bill 192