It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
BOSTON — Wearing lipstick, a scooped-neck sweater and nearly waist-length hair, the witness cried while describing what it feels like to be a woman trapped inside a man's body. "The greatest loss is the dying I do inside a little bit every day," said Michelle Kosilek, an inmate who is serving a life sentence for murder.
~~~~~~~
Kosilek was Robert Kosilek when he was convicted in the killing of his wife. In 1993, while in prison, he legally changed his name to Michelle.
Since then, Kosilek has been fighting for the state Department of Correction to pay for sex-change surgery, which can cost from $10,000 to $20,000. After two lawsuits and two trials, the decision now rests with a federal judge.
~~~~~~~
In Massachusetts, four of the 12 inmates diagnosed with gender-identity disorder are receiving hormone shots, including Kosilek. Prison officials also allowed Kosilek to receive laser hair removal, female undergarments and some makeup.www.foxnews.com...
Originally posted by iori_komei
well it can be argued that not allowing someone to undergo a sex change operation is psychologically cruel and unusual punishment.
Originally posted by chissler
Argued by who?
Not allowing a prisoner of the state to undergo a sex change operation, paid for by the taxpayers, is an act of cruelty?
If he wants to undergo a sex change operation, start saving. We are not talking about physically abusing him, or removing any inherited right, we are talking about funding an operation that the state can not simply afford.
If this were an honest, hardworking, member of society, would the operation be paid for? That is a question, not a statement. I really doubt it would, but I do pose the question. If a contributing member of society would not have the operation covered, there is no chance in hell that this inmate deserves it.
Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
It just steams me so much because inmates with HIV and cancer in this, the wealthiest state in the Union, can't get the care and medication they need to be healthy and live, and yet this "confused" person wants money to pay for what is essentially voluntary surgery.
I see your points, Iori, I do, but I have no sympathy for this person. A person with a huge nose for instance, could suffer psychological problems, etc., but should the state pay for his or her rhinoplasty? Or a breast enlargement? Or penile enhancement? This strikes me as a very slippery slope, where would we draw the line?
Originally posted by iori_komei
I say draw the line at cosmetic surgery, only surgeries that are necessary,
and I consider gender realignment to be a necessary surgery.
Originally posted by iori_komei
If America did'nt follow such flawed neo-libertarian economic philosophies,
and we had Universal health-care it would mot likely be covered.
Originally posted by chissler
Wrong.
I'm a Canadian citizen with a health-care system that provides me ample opportunity to go to a hospital and receive the care that I need. But, to my knowledge, I do not have sex change operations at my disposal.
I'm willing to bet that most health-care systems would not cover a sex change operation.
So with that in mind, "most" average citizens would not have this surgery paid for. Why should an inmate? Why should someone who held no regard for social norms, have such an operation available to him?
A sex change operation for an inmate is not money well spent.
Originally posted by gallopinghordes
For example, while they are undergoing the change where do we house them. They are still male so they can't go to a women's prison; they also become far more vulnerable to victimization inside the prison. There are issues far beyond just the actual surgery and the cost that would have to be addressed.
iori_komei; cost is very relevant why should the taxpayers pay for this procedure? A procedure that any other person would have to pay for themselves and can't get because they chose to obey the law and not end up in prison. How is that fair?
Originally posted by Relentless
We can keep this simple. No person who has committed a crime and is now incarcerated at our expense for the safety of society should have access to ANYTHING that hard working contributing members of society can't afford.
Cry me a river! Plenty of people on the outside don't even have access to ANY decent medical care they can afford. Of course they should be given medical care, but this is too much. On the outside this is considered "elective" surgery. This is a crock.
Now, as an afterthought..... I was watching a cold case file show last night and there was an instance of attempting to match a decade old blood sample found on the murder weapon to the victim. All they could get initially was the blood type and gender of the blood sample. This was a shock to me that gender is identifiable in a blood sample. So, what gender would the blood sample identify of these people suppossedly trapped in the wrong body?