Sex reassignment for prisoners not state issue
A recent Massachusetts court ruling has not only caused a major divide between Massachusetts government officials but has become a hot topic of debate for the whole nation. Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts ruled that prison inmate Michelle Kosilek, formally known as Robert Kosilek, would receive gender reassignment surgery, paid for by the state. The judge determined that not allowing the inmate this surgery would be a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which is the right to adequate medical care. While this argument does hold some truth, I believe that there are many other conditions that hold equal precedence in determining the ruling in this somewhat unique situation.
I have always felt strongly that if it will help them in their pursuit of happiness and if it does not affect me in any way then I have no reason to stand in their way. However, as a Massachusetts resident, my family’s tax money would be paying for this individual’s surgery. Now while I personally do not protest an individual’s decision to make such a life alteration, there are still a great deal of people whose beliefs do not advocate such an operation. These people are entitled to their opinion and while I may disagree with them, it is unfair to impose upon them the cost of something they do not agree with.
Another issue lies in the security of Michelle Kosilek and of the people whom she will be surrounded by. Prison officials were in opposition to the ruling because they said Kosilek would become a target of violence and that they could not provide the extensive protection to one inmate that would be necessary in this predicament.
Other inmates have argued that denying one this operation is against the Constitution’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment. But most people’s health insurance also does not yet cover the extensive costs for this procedure and so most individuals who receive the surgery are expected to pay for it themselves. I find this argument to hold little merit because, as I just mentioned, law-abiding transsexual individuals are often denied the operation due to the fact that they cannot afford it. It is difficult for me to feel sympathy for convicted felons who feel that the state refusing to pay for their operation is cruel punishment while law-abiding citizens are forced to pay for this surgery out of pocket. It simply wouldn’t make sense that we would feelobligated to pay for the operation for a convicted murderer while law abiding citizens are left in the cold.
Anyone is entitled to undergo this procedure to achieve the physical sex that they associate with. It is not the responsibility of taxpayers, however, to pay for it — especially for a prison inmate.