Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Defying Judge's order, White House instructs Personnel Agency to obstruct health benefits to spousee

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 04:14 PM
Original message
Defying Judge's order, White House instructs Personnel Agency to obstruct health benefits to spousee
Edited on Fri Nov-27-09 04:15 PM by FreeState
http://www.towleroad.com/2009/11/defying-judges-order-white-house-instructs-personnel-agency-to-obstruct-health-benefits-to-spouse-of.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+towleroad%2Ffeed+%28Towleroad+Daily++%23gay+news%29

DEFYING JUDGE'S ORDER, WHITE HOUSE INSTRUCTS PERSONNEL AGENCY TO OBSTRUCT HEALTH BENEFITS TO SPOUSE OF LESBIAN EMPLOYEE

Back in February I posted about a ruling by a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judge regarding the offering of health benefits to the spouse of a lesbian employee in a decision it appeared would directly challenge DOMA.

Michelangelo Signorile points out some troubling activity on this case which was just written up in TIME:

"...it was actually going to happen until the White House, through the Office of Personnel Management -- headed by openly gay appointee, John Berry -- refused to comply and directed the health insurance carrier of the employee not to proceed :

The order was not published, and garnered little or no notice at the time. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts moved to comply with the judge's ruling, submitting Golinski's insurance form to Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the case would have probably gone away — had the Obama Administration not stepped in. "After the AO submitted Ms. Golinski's form, I thought this matter had concluded," Kozinski wrote. "The Executive Branch, acting through the Office of Personnel Management, thought otherwise. It directed the insurance carrier not to process Ms. Golinski's form 2809, thwarting the relief I had ordered. I must now decide what further steps are necessary to protect Ms. Golinski and the integrity of the Judiciary's EDR plans."


Now Judge Kozinkski has ordered that OPM stop interfering, demanding last week that the Obama administration comply with his order.


The White House has a month to respond: " order last week demanded that the executive branch reverse course, and gave the Administration 30 days to enroll Golinski's wife as her health-insurance beneficiary. He made clear that if it doesn't, he's ready to use the powers of his court to enforce his decree."

And the sadder "personnel" irony here, Signorile notes, is that the OPM is headed by John Berry, the highest-ranking gay official in the Obama administration:

"...the Office of Personnel Management was ordered by the White House to refuse to give a lesbian federal employees her court-ordered rights. John Berry, as head of that office, was thus apparently forced as an openly gay man to deny another gay person, and the LGBT movement itself, of rights, even in the face or a court order. Is this how openly gay appointees must operate within the Obama administration -- not as advocates on behalf of civil rights but rather as lackeys charged with blocking equal rights for their own kind?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. All right, who's going to defend this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crim son Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Not me. WTF? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. WTF, indeed!
I just figured the pom pom squad would be in here in no time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. they usually don't post in GLBT anymore
I guess fighting against equal rights got to be too "Twister-ish" for even the most committed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Didn't even notice the forum since I clicked in from 'Latest'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crim son Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. Oh, I don't mean you aren't absolutely correct.
I'm commenting on the story rather than your prediction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. Not going to defend it, but its not being handled as a GLBT issue
instead is a dispute between the judicial branch and the OPM over personnel policies. The Time article explained that part well. DOMA is not even on the table here.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1942791,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. DOMA *is* on the table in a number of other cases
This judge took another tack: he ruled against the administration on the grounds of separation of powers. The more stones thrown at anti marriage equality arguments, from every conceivable angle, the better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Not so much.
What worries me is that this and some similar ones are being discussed as head on successful attacks against DOMA, which they are not. This leads to false hope which may well be crushed at the SCOTUS level. OPM has historically set personnel policy for all Federal employees and I see no reason for SCOTUS to change that. Some of the potential changes discussed in the Time article where much broader that just GLBT issues.

That said there is certainly some merit to viewing this as just one of a many pronged attack on inequality...DOMA need to die one way or the other

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. as I've posted in another thread
in the Levenson case (which is almost identical to this one, as it also involves a CA Federal worker seeking spousal benefits) the Judged did indeed strike down key provisions of DOMA:

"Indeed, Reinhardt ruled for Levenson last year, but the Office of Personnel Management (ironically headed by the highest ranking openly gay official in the administration) refused to comply, citing the Defense of Marriage Act, even though Reinhardt had overruled its provisions in this case. Reinhardt’s response last week was to order the Office to give Levenson the cash equivalent of the benefits.

http://www.sfbaytimes.com/?sec=article&article_id=11931

There are also several broader lawsuits seeking to overturn via equal protection arguments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. I have read the article you cite and some others on that particular case
The case also had aspects of Judicial vice Executive branch issues and was not a head on attack on DOMA. Opinions on its impact on DOMA are mixed. We certainly know where OPM and this administration stands. Regardless, its headed to SCOTUS to get worked out. Figure its at least a year out from hearing anything at best. In the mean time, SCOTUS or Congress could do the right thing and kill DOMA outright, but I doubt it.

My real concern over all of this is the emotional roller coaster that it brings to the GLBT community. We don't need false hopes etc rising and then getting dashed. It leads to activism burnout and emotional turmoil. IMO DOMA will die in the courts. Its just a matter of the right case, which these do not appear to be, though I would love to be wrong.

I have no illusions about the Congress or this administration standing up and doing the right thing, the courts will be the way we bury DOMA.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. And in yet another case, the Judge found provisions of DOMA unconstitutional
"Brad Levenson, a federal prosecutor in California, had tried and failed to get benefits for his husband. Under the law, employment disputes in the federal judiciary are decided by judges, not administrators, hence Judge Reinhardt’s intervention.

Indeed, Reinhardt ruled for Levenson last year, but the Office of Personnel Management (ironically headed by the highest ranking openly gay official in the administration) refused to comply, citing the Defense of Marriage Act, even though Reinhardt had overruled its provisions in this case. Reinhardt’s response last week was to order the Office to give Levenson the cash equivalent of the benefits."

http://www.sfbaytimes.com/?sec=article&article_id=11931

So, how will Obama's DOJ justify continuing to defend DOMA?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchtv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
7. Isn't the term for John Berry
"Judas Goat"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
8. I'm sure it's part of the grand 10-level chess game
Obama has our best interests at heart and we just need to be patient, you know. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
22. yep - he knows what's best for us
we just need to have faith that we don't know what's best for us, ourselves. :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
9. They WANT this to go to the US Supreme Court, so we can be rid of this nonsense once and for all. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. So why not give her spouse the insurance while appealing the ruling then ?
A little common decency goes a long way...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. rofl
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-27-09 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
16. Big White House orders this? Begs ?: Who in big WH orders this?
Who will get the contempt of court charge. I'm curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dickthegrouch Donating Member (838 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
19. Disgusting. Berry can be ashamed of himself
Don't let slip that the cash value of benefits for something catastrophic could be a whole lot higher than the premiums.
While I wouldn't wish catastrophic illness on anyone, that could be an "interpretation" of the workaround suggested to show how ridiculous it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ginnyinWI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. .
Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 01:14 PM by ginnyinWI
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GodlessBiker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-30-09 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-28-09 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
20. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 02:06 AM
Response to Original message
24. Shame on them!
This kind of cowardice by the White House is unacceptable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC