Gender Reassignment Surgery for Convicted Killer – How Much Medical Care Should Prisoners Get [POLL]
The question is, should medical care for prisoners go as far as paying for a convicted transgender killer’s gender reassignment surgery?
It’s absurd to even wrap your brain around that, but that’s exactly what’s going to happen in Massachusetts.
And even though Massachusetts makes New Jersey look like Texas, wacky judges who make rulings such as the one described below know no boundaries.
("Clowns in black robes" is what one distinguished journalist calls them!)
Convicted murderer Michelle Kosilek is one step closer to gender reassignment surgery.
One Massachusetts hospital is considering hosting Kosilek’s taxpayer-funded surgery, while six doctors have expressed interest in performing it.
Last September, U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ordered prison officials to provide surgery for the transgender inmate, saying the surgery is the “only adequate treatment” for Kosilek’s gender identity disorder.
As a man, Robert Kosilek was found guilty of first-degree murder for strangling his wife, Cheryl in 1990. He later dumped her body in a car in a mall parking lot.
The killer then legally changed her name to Michelle. She is currently living as a woman and receiving hormone treatments in an all-male prison.
Correction Commissioner Luis S. Spencer said in a court document that the department is willing to send the woman out of state if her surgery can’t be completed in Massachusetts. His preference, however, is for the surgery to take place in Massachusetts.
Judge Wolf said in his ruling last year that refusing to provide the surgery would be a violation of Kosilek’s constitutional right against cruel and unusual punishment. (Emphasis mine) Gender reassignment surgery is seen as a medically sound treatment for gender identity disorder.
The state has appealed Wolf’s decision. State officials say that a sex change would turn Kosilek into a target for sexual assault by other inmates.
I know the response to the last sentence is going to be something like, “so what, isn't that what he wants?”
Most of us would think so.
However, this is the sentence that should enrage any tax paying citizen.
“…would be a violation of Kosilek’s constitutional right against cruel and unusual punishment.”
So in order to review, to deny the prisoner the “needed” surgery to treat his gender identity disorder would constitute “cruel and unusual punishment”?
Maybe they need to put that one before the medical examiners of CoreCare.
(For anyone who doesn’t know about CoreCare; that’s the firm that will decide whether or not your insurance company should allow you to get a procedure your doctor might prescribe. Think of all the times you've been disallowed for one procedure or another, and chances are the decision was made by some non-medical person at CoreCare.)
I’m sure they’d deny that one in a heartbeat.
Alas, but we’re not dealing with CoreCare. We’re dealing with the government, and as long as you’re paying for it, they’re ok with that!