Obama Orders Hospital Gay Visitation Rights

doctor-obamaThe big news overnight is that President Obama has ordered hospitals to allow partners of gays and lesbians to visit and be allowed to make critical decisions.

Michael Schear, WaPo: “Obama extends hospital visitation rights to same-sex partners of gays

President Obama mandated Thursday that nearly all hospitals extend visitation rights to the partners of gay men and lesbians and respect patients’ choices about who may make critical health-care decisions for them, perhaps the most significant step so far in his efforts to expand the rights of gay Americans.

The president directed the Department of Health and Human Services to prohibit discrimination in hospital visitation in a memo that was e-mailed to reporters Thursday night while he was at a fundraiser in Miami.

Administration officials and gay activists, who have been quietly working together on the issue, said the new rule will affect any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding, a move that covers the vast majority of the nation’s health-care institutions. Obama’s order will start a rule-making process at HHS that could take several months, officials said.

Hospitals often bar visitors who are not related to an incapacitated patient by blood or marriage, and gay rights activists say many do not respect same-sex couples’ efforts to designate a partner to make medical decisions for them if they are seriously ill or injured.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg, NYT: “Obama Widens Medical Rights for Same-Sex Partners

The rules will take time to draft and put in place, and so Mr. Obama’s order will have no immediate effect. Even so, gay rights groups called it a major advance for the families of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender individuals.

“It’s a huge deal,” said David Smith, vice president of policy for the Human Rights Campaign, which worked with the White House to develop the memorandum, in an interview Thursday night. “Nearly every hospital in the country will now be required to provide hospital visitation rights to LGBT families. It’s an enormous step. In the absence of equal marriage rights in most jurisdictions, this step provides an essential right to LGBT families for a gay person or a lesbian person to spend time with their partner in a critical situation.”

CNN Wire Staff: “Obama orders hospital visitation rights for gays, lesbians

resident Obama has asked the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a rule that would prevent hospitals from denying visitation privileges to gay and lesbian partners.

The president’s Thursday memo said, “There are few moments in our lives that call for greater compassion and companionship than when a loved one is admitted to the hospital. … Yet every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides.”

Gay and lesbian Americans are “uniquely affected” by relatives-only policies at hospitals, Obama said, adding that they “are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives — unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated.”

[…]

Obama requested that the regulation make clear that any hospital receiving Medicare and Medicaid funding, which includes the vast majority of U.S. hospitals, must allow patients to decide who can visit them and prohibit discrimination based on a variety of characteristics, including sexual orientation and gender identity.

A PDF of Obama’s memo can be found here.  What’s interesting about it is that, while all the attention is — rightly — being focused on gays and lesbians, the order is actually more far reaching.

Often, a widow or widower with no children is denied the support and comfort of a good friend. Members of religious orders are sometimes unable to choose someone other than an immediate family member to visit them and make medical decisions on their behalf.

[…]

Initiate appropriate rulemaking, pursuant to your authority under 42 U.S.C. 1395x and other relevant provisions of law, to ensure that hospitals that participate in Medicare or Medicaid respect the rights of patients to designate visitors. It should be made clear that designated visitors, including individuals designated by legally valid advance directives (such as durable powers of attorney and health care proxies), should enjoy visitation privileges that are no more restrictive than those that immediate family members enjoy. You should also provide that participating hospitals may not deny visitation privileges on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The rulemaking should take into account the need for hospitals to restrict visitation in medically appropriate circumstances as well as the clinical decisions that medical professionals make about a patient’s care or treatment.

Now, it’s a long way from a directive memo to enforcing regulations.  But it sounds like Obama is ordering a very broad right of hospital visitors to designate whomever they wish be allowed to visit and carry out medical decisions.  This will have a disparate impact on homosexuals, of course, but it bypasses the “special rights” argument that opponents of gay rights typically cite.  And they’d have a point in this case were Obama to privilege homosexual couples over non-married heterosexual couples.

If my interpretation of what Obama is doing is correct, then I wholeheartedly support the policy outcome.  It’s long past due.

I am, however, a bit concerned about the implementation on at least two grounds.

First, I agree with AllahPundit that this is a matter for legislation — i.e., Congress — not executive order or regulation.  This isn’t a clarifying instruction on enforcement of an existing law.  It’s a rather broad law in and of itself.  That’s beyond the reasonable scope of presidential power.

Second, it demonstrates the darkest fears of those of us who are suspicious of the expansion of government control over the healthcare system.  Inevitably, the creation of even limited government programs provides a wedge to allow government to control the entirety of an enterprise.  So, the existence of Medicaid gives government the right to dictate all manner of unrelated hospital policies — even for the vast majority of patients not on Medicaid.  (It’s not just healthcare. The existence of school loan programs or the GI Bill gives the government the power to dictate all manner of unrelated educational policies.)   It’s the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent.  And, if the president can, on a whim, dictate something as mundane as hospital visitation policy, what can’t he dictate with regard to healthcare?

FILED UNDER: Gender Issues, Government, Health, Health Care, Politics 101, US Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. john personna says:

    I read this paragraph in Obama’s memo to mean that your fears are overblown:

    This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    IANAL, but I think that means that his “request” is non-binding.

  2. James Joyner says:

    IANAL, but I think that means that his “request” is non-binding.

    I read it slightly differently: The memo itself doesn’t create any legal rights. The pursuant regulations, though, almost certainly will.

  3. sam says:

    @JJ

    First, I agree with AllahPundit that this is a matter for legislation — i.e., Congress — not executive order or regulation.

    But doesn’t this imply that enabling legislation is already in place?

    Initiate appropriate rulemaking, pursuant to your authority under 42 U.S.C. 1395x and other relevant provisions of law, to ensure that hospitals that participate in Medicare or Medicaid respect the rights of patients to designate visitors.

  4. john personna says:

    James ;-), you have to work a little harder on your 3 sentence responses. Let’s look at them.

    I read it slightly differently:

    OK.

    The memo itself doesn’t create any legal rights.

    Wait a sec, that’s what I said!

    The pursuant regulations, though, almost certainly will.

    So you are really afraid of some future, undefined, changes?

  5. James Joyner says:

    So you are really afraid of some future, undefined, changes?

    Obama has ordered, in writing, a subordinate agency to enact enforcing regulations within 180 days. I fully expect that they will do so.

  6. James Joyner says:

    sam,

    But doesn’t this imply that enabling legislation is already in place?

    Initiate appropriate rulemaking, pursuant to your authority under 42 U.S.C. 1395x and other relevant provisions of law, to ensure that hospitals that participate in Medicare or Medicaid respect the rights of patients to designate visitors.

    Take a look at that section. It’s ridiculously long and complicated. But a quick scan gives the impression that it’s about what constitutes a hospital or nursing home or other facility that is subject to HHS regulation. It’s not about hospital visitation, gay rights, or anything related to the order.

  7. JKB says:

    First step only affecting those hospitals accepting Medicare/Medicaid, then they’ll do a Massachusetts and make acceptance of Medicare/Medicaid a requirement of licensure regardless of whether you can run a practice on the low government payments.

  8. john personna says:

    Obama has ordered, in writing, a subordinate agency to enact enforcing regulations within 180 days.

    Sam’s point is that he is asking them to pursue current law. Beyond that, he is asking them to pursue current law to respect patient’s wishes. That doesn’t sound too scary. It not like friggin’ death panels. It’s mom and apple pie.

    In fact, this is one of those weird reversals we see in political response. Here respect for the individual is bad, because it is coming from the wrong person. (Or maybe just because it’s about “teh gays”.)

  9. PD Shaw says:

    This phrase probably doesn’t mean much:

    This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    It looks like a bit of legalese to preclude standing of citizens to sue the government under laws such as the Civil Rights Act. It certainly doesn’t preclude the government from enforcing these obligations against hospitals and their staff.

  10. UlyssesUnbound says:

    Doesn’t this just put us on a slippery slope? Next thing you know, gay people will have horses and trees visiting them.

  11. PD Shaw says:

    sam’s quote suggestions that Obama believes that past Congresses passed laws directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to determine visitation policy at practically all U.S. hospitals.

    I’m skeptical, but someone would have to read it.

  12. PD Shaw says:

    no, suggestions is not a verb, but it should be.

  13. anjin-san says:

    And, if the president can, on a whim, dictate something as mundane as hospital visitation policy,

    On a whim? Exactly what evidence do you have of this? When Eisenhower ordered school desegregation in Little Rock, was it “on a whim”?

    I am friendly with a lesbian couple, both of whom have been battling cancer over the last few years. I can assure you that they do not consider the issue of hospital visitation policy to be mundane.

  14. Rick DeMent says:

    So, the existence of Medicaid gives government the right to dictate all manner of unrelated hospital policies — even for the vast majority of patients not on Medicaid.

    Well yeah but if it wasn’t government programs it would be something else like capitalism. I mean in today’s economy it is impossible for almost any public or private business to not be engaged in interstate commerce. That ship has sailed for better or for worse … all businesses of almost any size are engaged in interstate commerce.

    Wasn’t the case in the late 18th century or for most of the 19th and early 20th. But now even a home based business orders office supplies over the internet and bingo you’re involved in interstate commerce. Our economy cannot function without this level of interconnectedness to markets both domestic and foreign rendering the quaint notion of local commerce a thing of the past.

    Second the federal governments involvement in WRT subsidies, grant’s, tax breaks, and what have you is actively sought out buy any business that can get their hands on them. Entrepreneurs are happy to get government cash from any level they can and active lobby for the privilege, you seem to be saying that the government rams the dough down their throats at gun point. While in some cases these businesses have no choice in most cases it is a choice, they want the goodies but not the strings that come with it (cry me a river). Since when has money ever been free?

    Finally, the government would not have to single out gays if the law reflected the reality of peoples choice to live with whoever they damn well please and bestow upon those partners the status of any relationship they are comfortable with. This goes for same sex, unmarried couples, elderly or mentally challenged people of the same sex who live together for mutual protection but do not have a sexual relationship. I agree that the issue of benefits is a whole different matter but for issues such as hospital visitation, power of attorney, estate matters it really shouldn’t matter to anyone and the state should have no issue in any case.

  15. sam says:

    @PD

    sam’s quote suggestions that Obama believes that past Congresses passed laws directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to determine visitation policy at practically all U.S. hospitals.

    Hey, ‘suggestions’ is fine with me, as a word. But no, I didn’t suggest (or whatever) that existing law directs, only that the pres believes existing law enables, etc. Minor point, but lawyers have handsome livings arguing over such minor points. And James is right, that’s a complicated statute, but aren’t they all?

  16. PD Shaw says:

    I think what lawyers will be looking at is the nondelegation doctrine. They can have at it.

    What will be striking is whether people believe that such a door can only be opened from the Left. Wouldn’t the next step be to start making sure none of the equipment or rooms in a hospital receiving Medicare/Medicaid are used in an abortion? Are the facilities for religious comfort adequate?

  17. Herb says:

    When I heard Obama was going to strip hospitals of the freedom to deny gay people visitation rights, I cried a little tear over yet another erosion of our rights and values as a society. This kind of sweeping totalitarianism is why you definitely should have voted Republican.

    Sarah Palin would have never let the president tell hospitals how to manage their affairs. We go back to common-sense first principles set down during the founding of our country. George Washington said that visiting your gay lover while he’s in a coma is a privilege, not a right. “The only right worth preserving is a hospital’s right to be a dick,” was the famous quote, I believe.

    Actually what Obama has done here is a very shrewd political move. The memo is just a memo. It carries weight because it’s from the president, but it doesn’t carry the kind of weight that would stand up in a court room. But it concedes a long-sought goal of the gay rights movement while simultaneously eliminating one of the arguments for legal gay marriage.

    Well played, Mr. President.

  18. Janis Gore says:

    Isn’t an advance directive neutral regarding the identity of the designee for medical power of attorney? Tell me, I don’t know.

    My unmarried brother signed power over to me when he was ill with cancer. Presumably, he could’ve designated a partner or a minister or whatever, if he’d so chosen. Could one of our other siblings have challenged that directive?

    And by law, wouldn’t that give the designee visitation rights? One could hardly make decisions regarding another’s medical care without some “eyes on” experience.

    I can see conflicts arising where there is no prior provision, as in the case of the cerebral aneurysm or an auto accident. Is that the window he’s trying to open here?

  19. PD Shaw says:

    Janis Gore, I would be shocked if a hospital refused visitation to someone with a healthcare directive or power of attorney in the last ten years. They want someone to make the decisions if the patient is incapacitated; sometimes they go to court to seek to appoint a stranger to make the decisions. I say within the last ten years because the legal framework and acceptance of them has been slow to evolve.

  20. UlyssesUnbound says:

    Wouldn’t the next step be to start making sure none of the equipment or rooms in a hospital receiving Medicare/Medicaid are used in an abortion? Are the facilities for religious comfort adequate?

    Good point. I hadn’t extended it that far. I think that backs up Dr. Joyner’s point that while this step is good, the method isn’t. There needs to be a legislative measure to ensure this rather than an executive decree.

  21. Stan says:

    Dr. Joyner’s fear of excessive presidential power is impressive. Was he just as vigilant in defense of our liberties when George Bush abrogated our Sixth Amendment and Habeas Corpus rights? Silly me, I think they’re important too.

  22. john personna says:

    Good point. I hadn’t extended it that far. I think that backs up Dr. Joyner’s point that while this step is good, the method isn’t. There needs to be a legislative measure to ensure this rather than an executive decree.

    Ulysses, it’s the entire purpose of the Executive to direct enforcement.

    When they overstep that we should look for redress from one of the other two branches. One of the reasons that won’t happen here is that it is positioned as “patient’s desire.” One of the realities of this is that a leader can lead as long as people follow. A contentious issue, like an attempt to ban abortion by the back door, would surely play out a bit differently.

  23. James Joyner says:

    Dr. Joyner’s fear of excessive presidential power is impressive. Was he just as vigilant in defense of our liberties when George Bush abrogated our Sixth Amendment and Habeas Corpus rights? Silly me, I think they’re important too.

    Actually, yes. I see and saw some areas where it was legitimate to apply something less than full Geneva rights to unprivileged belligerents but always maintained that Constitutional protections for US citizens were sacrosanct and that it was dangerous, indeed, to allow the president to designate certain individuals for non-inclusion based on mere say-so.

  24. Janis Gore says:

    This all strikes me as too complicated to leave to hospitals. If there is such an unusual relationship that a hospital would refuse to allow that dear person to visit the ICU or make decisions, that should be taken care of before circumstances arise. An advance directive is inexpensive and simple to prepare, and would remove the hospital as arbiter of relationships. In Mississippi, an advance directive lasts for two or three years, I can’t remember.

    That same brother nursed a gay partner during his losing battle with lymphoma. He was given medical power of attorney in the early stages of the illness, and no questions ever arose regarding visitation or decision-making. That was in Dallas 1990-1993.

    And when I became responsible for my brother, my sister-in-law, the 30-year nurse, insisted that we arrange an advance directive even though I was next-of-kin to clarify my standing with regard to HIPAA rules, medical records, and decision-making.

  25. UlyssesUnbound says:

    john personna,

    I’m well aware of the purpose of the Executive branch.

    One of the reasons that won’t happen here is that it is positioned as “patient’s desire.” One of the realities of this is that a leader can lead as long as people follow. A contentious issue, like an attempt to ban abortion by the back door, would surely play out a bit differently.

    I think leaders can lead as long as some people follow. I could very well see PD Shaw’s hypothetical scenario playing out. Quite a bit of our citizens would, unfortunately, support it.

    If what you are saying is correct–that contentious issues wouldn’t play out since there wouldn’t be popular support–they we would never have an executive power blocking popular concepts like OTC purchasing of the morning-after pill, or institutionalizing the practice of blocking legal health care procedures based on moral objections.

    You’re right. It would never happen.

  26. Billy says:

    James, how exactly is it dangerous for a president to direct an administrative agency to revise the Code of Federal Regulations under the authority that was explicitly delegated to the agency by congress to change policy in line with the new executive administration’s stated directives? The president has merely requested of his own appointees that they engage in constitutionally permissible rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act and that it enforce already-enacted rules. This is everyday lawmaking – about as uncontroversial as process gets – and any clamor about the permissibility or desirability of the method exposes exactly how uninformed about process the speaker is.

    As for a nondelegation argument, you have to have a rule before you can argue that it exceeds the authority delegated by congress. All we have today is a request from the President that HHS engage in the rulemaking process, so there is nothing to argue over.

    Please, people, take an administrative law class before you start to wade into these waters. Just about everyone posting here is dangerously out of their depth.

  27. JMC in the ATL says:

    @ PD Shaw:

    The motivating factor behind the memo is a case in FL where a woman’s same-sex partner and children were denied the right to visit her even after having the medical POA faxed from CA. So not only has it happened, its the proximate cause.

  28. Janis Gore says:

    Thank you, JMC. So there was no POA in the state of Florida.

    WaPo could have put that in the main article.

  29. PD Shaw says:

    Thanks JMC. Was there an issue with it being out-of-state? Shocking.

  30. PD Shaw says:

    billy, could you point to where this action is “explicitly delegated to the agency by congress”?

    I know, for example, that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explictly delegated to federal agencies the responsibility of not funding entities that discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin.

  31. BobN says:

    Yes, folks, we are entering dangerous totalitarian waters when the President of the United States issues a memo instructing hospitals which receive federal dollars to OBEY THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS of the patients they serve.

    All this hand-wringing about executive power and how this memo should have been issued is silly. There is no law created here. Medical directives and powers of attorney were instituted by legislatures decades ago. This is reminder from the President that hospitals can’t ignore duly obtained legal documents because they don’t like the patient’s “lifestyle”.

  32. Bill says:

    The statute referred to in the executive order requires a hospital that receives reimbursements under Medicaid/medicare to meet “such other conditions relating to the health and safety of individuals who are furnished services … as the Secretary may find necessary” So,there’s plenty of statutory authority to do what Obama is ordering.

    Read more: http://vlex.com/vid/sec-definitions-19252247#ixzz0lI23ENML

  33. Billy says:

    PD – Bill beat me to it (thanks Bill!).

    This is a non-event, procedurally speaking.

  34. PD Shaw says:

    I found the Florida case. LINK

    The court found that the power of attorney had been complied with, by consulting with the patent’s life partner on the material treatment options, even though she wasn’t allowed to see her until last rites were read with a priest.

    I’m more inclined to think some sort of access to the patient is needed for the designee to assess whether the patient is in pain or can communicate. How much time?

  35. Franklin says:

    For goodness sake, PD, you always do this. Shouldn’t you have your own blog or something? You’re always bothering with ‘facts’ and drilling down to the ‘core issues’.

    It’s really annoying, actually – I’m more comfortable with arguments that can be classified as Left or Right, so I know whether they are valid or not.

  36. floyd says:

    “”resident Obama has asked the Department of Health…””
    “””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
    I’ve been using that title for over a year and everybody thought it was a typo![lol]
    Glad to see it is starting to catch on!

  37. Janis Gore says:

    Maybe not while the doctors were actively involved treating the trauma, PD, but what explains the hours between 6:55 and 10:30 or so while Ms. Pond lay alone. Those hours seem to be more of the issue here.

    And shouldn’t that have been her consent on the forms rather than Ms. Pond’s father’s?

  38. Janis Gore says:

    Not Ms. Pond’s, mind, but her partner’s.

  39. Have a nice G.A. says:

    Yes, folks, we are entering dangerous totalitarian waters when the President of the United States issues a memo instructing hospitals which receive federal dollars to OBEY THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS of the patients they serve.

    lolwhats with the you better obey the dictator cause he gave you some tax payers money nonsense?

    Can some one tell me why you can’t have who ever you want visit you?

    Then explain whats the difference if you are unable to state such?

  40. UlyssesUnbound says:

    G.A.,

    WTF are you talking about? I’m trying to make sense of those three sentences, but they are so muddled and incoherent that its impossible to surmise what you were thinking (if you were, in fact, even thinking).

    Seriously, was the English language your first language, or are you an ESL student?

  41. john personna says:

    If what you are saying is correct–that contentious issues wouldn’t play out since there wouldn’t be popular support–they we would never have an executive power blocking popular concepts like OTC purchasing of the morning-after pill, or institutionalizing the practice of blocking legal health care procedures based on moral objections.

    You’re right. It would never happen.

    I think what I said was that this was the purpose of the Executive. And if we accepted those things, or took them to court, then that’s what we did.

  42. Stan says:

    I apologize for my sarcastic question to Dr. Joyner concerning his support of our constitutional liberties during the previous administration. I don’t agree with the thrust of his post, but he comes into the debate with clean hands.

  43. PD Shaw says:

    Maybe not while the doctors were actively involved treating the trauma, PD, but what explains the hours between 6:55 and 10:30 or so while Ms. Pond lay alone. Those hours seem to be more of the issue here.

    One is left with the impression that Ms. Pond is lying on a gurney in a hallway somewhere waiting for someone to transport her from the trauma center to an intensive care facility. It’s not a pretty sight, but it doesn’t appear that other family members were allowed to be with her at this time either.

    And shouldn’t that have been her consent on the forms rather than Ms. Pond’s father’s?

    The life partner didn’t have her power of attorney at admission, it was faxed to her later. (Something to think about, how many of us would have p.o.a. forms available in an emergency) The relationship between the life partner and Ms. Pond’s family seems good. I was expecting this to be a source of conflict.

    Anyway, Ms. Pond’s story demonstrates the limits of the legislative authority Bill cites to. There were no injuries or harm to Ms. Pond claimed here. The life partner, and their adopted kids, were harmed. They weren’t allowed the precious few hours left to stand at the bed side of their dying loved one.

  44. Janis Gore says:

    It’s worth noting that the judge did reproach the hospital personnel for conduct unbecoming to a renowned institution in his conclusion.

    Hospital personnel probably then said, “Fine. You come work in a Miami trauma center on a holiday weekend.”

  45. Have a nice G.A. says:

    UlyssesUnbound it’s not my fault your a dumb ass who only understands propaganda.

    SO QUIT HATING ME FOR IT!

    And what in the great punk bitching hell is an ESL student?

  46. I admit to being puzzled how/where the president has the authority to order all U.S. hospitals to do anything. This smells like ruling by decree.

    I don’t even disagree with what he ordered, but why is this the subject of an executive order rather than legislation? Or does he suspect that he couldn’t get any more legislation passed, even if it was a resolution agreeing that water is wet.

  47. sam says:

    @GA

    And what in the great punk bitching hell is an ESL student?

    That’s what you would be if you had enough brains.

  48. floyd says:

    It stands for “English as a second language”…

    Actually ESL is what will soon apply to all American students since the inclusion and diversity crowd has always rejected traditional American culture as either illegitimate or non-existent.

    Unless of course English is banned altogether as the language of bigots and people without color.

  49. UlyssesUnbound says:

    Consul,

    From what I understand–and I really haven’t read this in depth so I its a good possibility I’m wrong–is that Obama’s order covers hospitals that receive medicare/medicaid patients, not all hospitals in the U.S. That is, most public hospitals and some private ones. I think if it is a private hospital that doesn’t receive medicare/medicaid patients (except for the odd E.R. visit I suppose), then this order doesn’t apply to them.

    In other words, end discriminatory practices or risk losing your ability to receive these patients. Since medicare/medicaid patients usually have a quite high reimbursement rate to the hospital, it is now quite a financial risk to hold discriminatory policies.

  50. UlyssesUnbound says:

    what in the great punk bitching hell

    Your eloquence and brevitas have shined forth in this reply. I stand corrected in my assessment of your vernacular abilities.

  51. G.A.Phillips says:

    Your eloquence and brevitas have shined forth in this reply. I stand corrected in my assessment of your vernacular abilities.

    It really pisses you off that I’m like a hundred times smarter then you and like ten times better looking don’t it, lolzzzzz………. Donkypooper.