What Do You Think of Taxpayer-Funded Sex Changes for Inmates?
A federal judge's ruling Tuesday on a Massachusetts case is believed to be the first of its kind.
A convicted murderer will receive a state-funded sex-reassignment surgery because a federal judge has ruled it is the only way to treat her "serious medical need."
Massachusetts state prison officials must provide the surgery to Michelle Kosilek, who was convicted as Robert Kosilek for killing his wife in 1990. Kosilek was born a male but has received hormone treatments and lives in an all-male prison.
Kosilek first sued the Massachusetts Department of Correction 12 years ago. Wolf ruled two years later that Kosilek was entitled to treatment for gender-identity disorder, but did not order surgery. The ruling yesterday stems from Kosilek suing again in 2005.
Sex change operations can cost up to $20,000. Many insurance companies reject the surgery as elective.
In his decision, Wolf stated that the surgery is the ‘‘only adequate treatment’’ for Kosilek and that ‘‘there is no less intrusive means to correct the prolonged violation of Kosilek’s Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care,’’ the Globe reported.
Prison officials have argued that allowing Kosilek to have the surgery would make her a target for sexual assaults by other inmates.
Senate President Therese Murray was among the politicians taking exception to the decision: "The recent court decision requiring the department of correction to provide a sex change operation for a convicted murderer should be appealed."
What do you think of the decision? Should public money fund sex change operations for prisoners?
bluefish
8:57 am on Saturday, September 8, 2012
This has been going on for years. Seems like a whole big waste of money for someone who's quality of life is already diminished by being an inmate (I assume for life, he was convicted of murder). But it is just like Mass. to have the rights of the offender outweigh the rights of the victims. Tax-payer funds should not be used for this. If he (her) has some money in his (her) family and they want to pay for it, then fine, but tax-payers ???? I knew someone who was convicted for drugs and could not even get an abscessed tooth removed ? This is going to far, since when do the desires of one get better treatment then the desires of others ?? Minority rules in Mass !!!
Bert Owens
12:05 pm on Saturday, September 8, 2012
Agreed!
Karen thayer
5:34 pm on Saturday, September 8, 2012
I agree they r there to seve time not a sex change sure I wuold love to get a boob job,plastic sergery or what ever I would have to pay money sooo he should too
French bulldog
6:07 pm on Saturday, September 8, 2012
Leave it to Massachusetts to be the leader in all things stupid and wasteful. To not give this idiot the operation would be "cruel and unusual punishment." What about the cruel and unusual punishment he acted out on his wife?
DONNY3666
9:05 am on Saturday, September 8, 2012
I'll support a sex change for the judge.
Tim
9:18 am on Saturday, September 8, 2012
He murdered someone! He lost his rights as a free person. Who does this judge think he is? Way out of line. Why should we be paying for this criminal to have his junk removed? This is insane! The cost of the surgery is just a tip of the iceberg for this fool. Next he will be crying that he's not being treated fairly as a post operative inmate and demand further special treatment. It will never end. Just give him a sharpened knife from the prison kitchen and tell him have at it! Once again, the rest of the country laughs at the re-dick-ulousness of this state.
Michael West
9:50 am on Saturday, September 8, 2012
I think the question to be answered first is, If the sex change is approved, paid for and done, and the inmate is then a woman, does (s)he transfer to a woman's prison?
marlene c.
4:32 pm on Saturday, September 8, 2012
With so many of our neighbors and families not getting the medical care they need, or going bankrupt to pay for it, this is a disgrace. This is far from a medical emergency. We all survive with some difficult conditions and no one else pays for them.
John H Bunker Sr.
10:06 am on Saturday, September 8, 2012
I must agree with Tim. Kosilek knocked on his estranged wife's door and when she opened it he shot her point blank. He is serving life for 1st degree murder and the state should not be going out of it's way to make him "comfortable". If he wants to be a woman so bad let him wait for the next life. As Tim says " give him a sharpened knife from the prison kitchen and tell him have at it! " OMG, you talk about a slippery slope.
Lillypad7
6:31 pm on Saturday, September 8, 2012
They compare this to a life threatening condition such as a liver transplant. This is not life threatening. If he chooses to harm himself becausde he is tortured inside then that is his choice. He has a choice. This simply can not be compared to Cancer, liver failure, heart failure, etc. I resent my tax dollars paying for this surgery.
Parisa Parsa
8:16 pm on Saturday, September 8, 2012
The right to one's humanity, to health care, and to dignity are not things one loses when being incarcerated. Understanding that people who have committed terrible crimes are still people is a basic standard of civilization. I pray that we will keep it.
Lillypad7
10:48 pm on Saturday, September 8, 2012
Where was his regard to humanity+ dignity when he took a person's life?
Tim
11:04 pm on Saturday, September 8, 2012
Paying for him to have a sex change is not a "basic standard of civilization".
John H Bunker Sr.
7:46 am on Sunday, September 9, 2012
This, like most surgery, can be dangerous. He could die on the operating table. Would his surviving relatives have grounds for a "Wrongful Death Suit" ?? What about plastic surgery for a big nose, liposuction for a fat gut, penile implants for "small" men, hair implants....Etc. How far do we go to make sure they are happy and well treated?
Boston R
8:44 am on Sunday, September 9, 2012
He killed a woman. He now seeks an operation that will change his gender and therefore lead to his incarceration in a female institution, where I'm presuming he will be one, if not the, physically strongest inmate.
Barb Nahoumi
9:16 am on Sunday, September 9, 2012
No frivolous elective surgery for a convicted murderer on MY dime---------NO WAY.
Taxpayers of Massachusetts need to appeal this ridiculous ruling.
donna
2:43 pm on Sunday, September 9, 2012
this state is getting worse and worse...he has no rights...period the end... and my mother had to share a room in a nursing home...and died as a result of an infection...she was a veteran, raised four children, worked all her life...and this dope gets a sex change and murdered his wife......ok, explain to me how this is fair...anyone?
Rodger Wonker
4:41 pm on Sunday, September 9, 2012
The following companies agree that it is NOT cosmetic surgery, and in some cases a medically necissary procedure...You may recognize a few...
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/transgender-inclusive-benefits-for-employees-and-dependents
The real question is: Why does a convicted murderer have better access to healthcare than the law-abiding? Any other circumstances are simply ignorance and bigotry. Get with the times.
Rodger Wonker
4:49 pm on Sunday, September 9, 2012
My apologies for posting the wrong link. This is the list of companies with transgender inclusive health care....Including Romney's own Bain & Company
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/corporate-equality-index-list-of-businesses-with-transgender-inclusive-heal
Menauhant
11:49 pm on Sunday, September 9, 2012
Why are some people blaming Massachusetts. It was a Federal Judge that made the ruling. The Massachusetts Correctional Department fought to not to have to this operation.