• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge orders California to pay for inmate's sex change

ggwilder

New member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
44
Reaction score
21
Location
atlanta, georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday ordered California's corrections department to provide a transgender inmate with sex reassignment surgery, the first time such an operation has been ordered in the state.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco ruled that denying the surgery to 51-year-old Michelle-Lael Norsworthy violates her constitutional rights. Her birth name is Jeffrey Bryan Norsworthy.

The ruling marks just the second time nationwide that a judge has issued an injunction directing a state prison system to provide the surgery, said Ilona Turner, legal director at the Transgender Law Center in Oakland, which helped represent Norsworthy.

The previous order in a Massachusetts case was overturned last year and is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In his ruling in California, Tigar cited testimony that the surgery has actually been performed just once on an inmate, an apparent reference to a person who castrated himself in Texas then was given the surgery out of necessity.

Norsworthy, who was convicted of murder, has lived as a woman since the 1990s and has what Tigar termed severe gender dysphoria — a condition that occurs when people's gender at birth is contrary to the way they identify themselves.

"The weight of the evidence demonstrates that for Norsworthy, the only adequate medical treatment for her gender dysphoria is SRS," Tigar wrote, referring to sex reassignment surgery.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation officials said they were considering whether to appeal the ruling.

"This decision confirms that it is unlawful to deny essential treatment to transgender people" in or out of prison, said Kris Hayashi, executive director of the Transgender Law Center. "The bottom line is no one should be denied the medical care they need."

If the order stands, Norsworthy would be the first inmate to receive such surgery in California, said Joyce Hayhoe, a spokeswoman for the federal receiver who controls California prison medical care.

Hayhoe said it's not known how much the surgery would cost, but it could run as high as $100,000 depending on the circumstances. The Transgender Law Center called the estimate "a gross exaggeration" and said Medi-Cal, California's health care program for low-income residents, has covered the procedure for years.

Corrections officials, in previous court filings, argued that Norsworthy has received proper medical and mental health care for more than 15 years and is in no immediate medical danger if the surgery is not performed.

Her care has included counseling, mental health treatment and hormone therapy that the department said "has changed her physical appearance and voice to that of a woman" while helping her find her gender identity.

That care is consistent with what other judges nationwide have found to be appropriate for transgender inmates, the department said.

Norsworthy has been in prison since 1987, serving a life sentence for second-degree murder. She has twice delayed her scheduled parole hearings in recent months.

She currently is housed at Mule Creek State Prison, an all-male prison in Ione, 40 miles southeast of Sacramento.

The sex change surgery would prompt practical problems, the department said.

It said keeping Norsworthy in a men's prison could invite violence, including possible assault and rape.

But she could also face danger at a women's prison — or pose a threat herself — because she had a history of domestic violence before her murder conviction, the department said.

Last month, attorneys for the transgender inmate convicted of murder in Massachusetts asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a ruling denying her request for sex reassignment surgery.

A federal judge in 2012 ordered the Massachusetts Department of Correction to grant the surgery to Michelle Kosilek, but the ruling was overturned in December by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

As in California, the appeal in Massachusetts cited security concerns about protecting the inmate.

Courts in other states have ordered hormone treatments, psychotherapy and other treatments but not surgery.

Judge orders California to pay for inmate's sex change

So he's getting a free surgery, that, had he not been in prison, he'd have to pay for himself?

I don't see how this makes any sense.
 
Judge orders California to pay for inmate's sex change

So he's getting a free surgery, that, had he not been in prison, he'd have to pay for himself?

I don't see how this makes any sense.

It makes sense if he's been living as a woman for almost 30 years, has been taking hormones to develop breasts and female contours, and is being housed in an all-male prison. You can imagine the problems. As a physical female, she can be transferred to a woman's prison, where she will supposedly fit in more comfortably. I'm a Californian and I don't have a problem with this tax-supported surgery. Transgenders have enough problems just being who they are. They deserve a bit of empathy and whatever comfort the surgery can provide.
 
It makes sense if he's been living as a woman for almost 30 years, has been taking hormones to develop breasts and female contours, and is being housed in an all-male prison. You can imagine the problems. As a physical female, she can be transferred to a woman's prison, where she will supposedly fit in more comfortably. I'm a Californian and I don't have a problem with this tax-supported surgery. Transgenders have enough problems just being who they are. They deserve a bit of empathy and whatever comfort the surgery can provide.

I just think that it's not fair.
 
It makes sense if he's been living as a woman for almost 30 years, has been taking hormones to develop breasts and female contours, and is being housed in an all-male prison. You can imagine the problems. As a physical female, she can be transferred to a woman's prison, where she will supposedly fit in more comfortably. I'm a Californian and I don't have a problem with this tax-supported surgery. Transgenders have enough problems just being who they are. They deserve a bit of empathy and whatever comfort the surgery can provide.

well, I don't have much sympathy for convicted murderers serving life in prison... and I don't think the taxpayers footing the bill for a very expensive elective surgery for said murderer is the best use of funding that can most assuredly be used more wisely.

I'd still send her to the womens prison , though...
 
well, I don't have much sympathy for convicted murderers serving life in prison... and I don't think the taxpayers footing the bill for a very expensive elective surgery for said murderer is the best use of funding that can most assuredly be used more wisely.

I'd still send her to the womens prison , though...

I hear you. I have no sympathy for murderers either, although I do wonder if living with this severe dysphoria all her life might have contributed to her crime. She cannot be sent to a women's prison with male genitalia, unfortunately.
 
I hear you. I have no sympathy for murderers either, although I do wonder if living with this severe dysphoria all her life might have contributed to her crime. She cannot be sent to a women's prison with male genitalia, unfortunately.

not sure of the particulars of her case... but it's possible her condition might have contributed.

I get some of the rules about genitalia, but the ones size fits all rule really doesn't work well with some of these rare cases.
doesn't mean we need to crank out 100k to add or subtract a penis, but some sort of accommodation surely can be made.
 
It makes sense if he's been living as a woman for almost 30 years, has been taking hormones to develop breasts and female contours, and is being housed in an all-male prison. You can imagine the problems. As a physical female, she can be transferred to a woman's prison, where she will supposedly fit in more comfortably. I'm a Californian and I don't have a problem with this tax-supported surgery. Transgenders have enough problems just being who they are. They deserve a bit of empathy and whatever comfort the surgery can provide.
Trans do, murderers not so much. Sorry.
 
not sure of the particulars of her case... but it's possible her condition might have contributed.

I get some of the rules about genitalia, but the ones size fits all rule really doesn't work well with some of these rare cases.
doesn't mean we need to crank out 100k to add or subtract a penis, but some sort of accommodation surely can be made.

That 100K figure is nuts. Someone just pulled it out of their ass to whip the plebes into a frenzy. Prison surgical procedures are procured on the cheap by the state, by doctors willing to accept fairly basic pay, and that particular surgery is fairly routine, believe it or not. I'd be surprised if the state paid more than about 15K, if that.
 
Trans do, murderers not so much. Sorry.

It's kind of a rights issue. The courts don't allow cruel/unusual punishment regardless of the crime, and I believe (I could be wrong) that the court ruled that keeping a full-breasted woman in a male prison should not be allowed. :shrug:

I'm not going to picket for her or anything, just explaining why I don't think having the surgery done in prison in order to transfer her to a women's prison is a bad idea.

I also imagine keeping her in solitary for her own protection is both a rights issue and a safety issue which probably costs as much as just doing the danged surgery and shipping her off to be part of the general population of a female prison.
 
That 100K figure is nuts. Someone just pulled it out of their ass to whip the plebes into a frenzy. Prison surgical procedures are procured on the cheap by the state, by doctors willing to accept fairly basic pay, and that particular surgery is fairly routine, believe it or not. I'd be surprised if the state paid more than about 15K, if that.

100k is probably on the high side.. but i think 15k is way low.

who the hell really knows ?... none of us has any clue what anything related to healthcare actually costs. :lol:
 
It's kind of a rights issue. The courts don't allow cruel/unusual punishment regardless of the crime, and I believe (I could be wrong) that the court ruled that keeping a full-breasted woman in a male prison should not be allowed. :shrug:

I'm not going to picket for her or anything, just explaining why I don't think having the surgery done in prison in order to transfer her to a women's prison is a bad idea.
Oh, the male prison, yeah that I agree with. the 15k for the GRS? No, sorry. I just... have this belief if you commit horrible crimes then you get to suffer. Helps deter others from making your mistakes. Just my view of course.
 
100k is probably on the high side.. but i think 15k is way low.

who the hell really knows ?... none of us has any clue what anything related to healthcare actually costs. :lol:

GRS is generally 10-15k, unless you go to Thailand.
 
100k is probably on the high side.. but i think 15k is way low.

who the hell really knows ?... none of us has any clue what anything related to healthcare actually costs. :lol:

lol, at least not that particular healthcare! Seriously, I do know that the state pays only basic medicare/medicaid rates for inmate health care, and as I told MrV, the cost of keeping her in solitary for safety reasons is probably also a hefty chunk of change that the state would like to stop paying.
 
lol, at least not that particular healthcare! Seriously, I do know that the state pays only basic medicare/medicaid rates for inmate health care, and as I told MrV, the cost of keeping her in solitary for safety reasons is probably also a hefty chunk of change that the state would like to stop paying.

well, if its only 10 or 15 grand.. that's cool by me...
they can make up that money by taking some perks away from wardens, school administrators ,or corrupt politicians.
 
well, if its only 10 or 15 grand.. that's cool by me...
they can make up that money by taking some perks away from wardens, school administrators ,or corrupt politicians.

There you go! I absolutely agree. :lol:
 
It makes sense if he's been living as a woman for almost 30 years, has been taking hormones to develop breasts and female contours, and is being housed in an all-male prison. You can imagine the problems. As a physical female, she can be transferred to a woman's prison, where she will supposedly fit in more comfortably. I'm a Californian and I don't have a problem with this tax-supported surgery. Transgenders have enough problems just being who they are. They deserve a bit of empathy and whatever comfort the surgery can provide.

It's not like your state is a trillion dollars in the hole, what's 100k at that point?

Why can't we consider denying the surgery as part of "her" sentence? You kill people after beig a domestic abuser you don't get nice things, this will lose on appeal anyway, the court of appeals will not uphold the ruling
 
well, if its only 10 or 15 grand.. that's cool by me...
they can make up that money by taking some perks away from wardens, school administrators ,or corrupt politicians.

You wouldn't want her pimped, I take it, to claw the money back?
 
It's not like your state is a trillion dollars in the hole, what's 100k at that point?

Why can't we consider denying the surgery as part of "her" sentence? You kill people after beig a domestic abuser you don't get nice things, this will lose on appeal anyway, the court of appeals will not uphold the ruling

WTF? What the hell does this do with Oregon law anyway? "You" can't consider anything as a part of "her" sentence. You are not Calif law. Back off.
 
It's not like your state is a trillion dollars in the hole, what's 100k at that point?

Why can't we consider denying the surgery as part of "her" sentence? You kill people after beig a domestic abuser you don't get nice things, this will lose on appeal anyway, the court of appeals will not uphold the ruling

WTF?? Calif hasn't had an execution in more years than I can even count. The court of appeals has already made it's ruling. What the **** is your problem??
 
Judge orders California to pay for inmate's sex change So he's getting a free surgery, that, had he not been in prison, he'd have to pay for himself? I don't see how this makes any sense.
NO, you can't read at all can you? Or perhaps better said, in your haste to be hateful and accusatory you failed to read your own quote... If he wasn't in prison, Medi-Cal would have covered the surgery, not "himself" at all. Just one CA agency or another.
 
Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for his surgery, let him get it on his own when he serves his time. We have enough costs with the prison system as it is.
 
They could just execute this person since a murder conviction is in effect. Or for those who disagree, they can start a kickstarter campaign and raise the funds.
 
Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for his surgery, let him get it on his own when he serves his time. We have enough costs with the prison system as it is.

Taxpayers would pay either way as Medi-Cal has been covering the cost for low income folks for quite a while, so taxpayer wise there is no actual difference,... well, as Diana pointed out above, it may actually cost less through the prison system than through doctors connected with private insurance or Medi-Cal
 
Back
Top Bottom