A federal judge ordered Massachusetts prison officials today to providesexual reassignment surgery for a convicted murderer, calling it the only way to correct the “prolonged violation” of the inmate’s Constitutional right against cruel and unusual punishment.
Michelle Kosilek, who was born Robert, had filed a lawsuit against the Massachusetts Department of Corrections, seeking an injunction that would require prison officials to grant her the sexual reassignment surgery that was recommended by prison doctors as treatment for her gender identity disorder. Robert Kosilek was convicted in the 1990 strangulation death of his wife, Cheryl.
U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled that Michelle Kosilek, who lives as a woman in a male prison facility, had experienced “intense mental anguish,” and said there was a “serious medical need” for her to have the procedure.
“It has long been well-established that it is cruel for prison officials to permit an inmate to suffer unnecessarily from a serious medical need,” the judge wrote in his 128-page decision.
He called it “unusual” to treat a prisoner with gender identity disorder differently “than the numerous inmates suffering from more familiar forms of mental illness.”
[…]Kosilek first sued the Department of Corrections in 2000. Two years later, Wolf ruled she should receive treatment for gender identity disorder, which included hormones. Kosilek sued again in 2005, again asking for gender reassignment surgery.
Frances Cohen, an attorney for Kosilek, told the Associated Press the judge made a courageous and thoughtful ruling.
I wonder if Frances Cohen and the judge are going to be paying for the surgery? No – that’s for the taxpayers to handle, I guess.
This tomfoolery is actually not unprecedented. Sex changes are taxpayer-funded in Ontario, Canada – where they have single-payer health care. And criminals are all eligible for sex changes in the UK under their NHS socialized medicine system. Here’s a recent case from last year, where a convicted killer is getting a sex change, courtesy of the NHS. (Which means the UK taxpayer)
Several years ago I blogged here about the case of Lisa Miller. Brief background summary: Lisa Miller entered into a lesbian civil union in Vermont with Janet Jenkins. During this civil union, Miller conceived and bore a child by using a sperm donor. The little girl, Isabella, was only eighteen months old when Miller left the relationship and formally broke it up legally. Miller converted to Christianity, left the homosexual lifestyle behind her, and fled to Virginia to keep her child away from Jenkins, who represented all that she had repented of and was now leaving behind. Jenkins, let us bear in mind, is not in any way related to Isabella and has not lived with her since she was eighteen months old.
Vermont courts, to whom the custody decision was ultimately given, treated the unrelated lesbian Jenkins as Isabella’s “other mother” and insisted on unsupervised visitation, even though Jenkins was, from Isabella’s perspective, a stranger. Isabella made some of these visits but was so upset by them (and alleged that Jenkins had bathed with her naked) that Miller refused to allow any more such visits with Jenkins, who had neither any natural claim on Isabella whatsoever nor any relationship with her. Eventually the custody judge decided to punish Miller for her intransigence concerning the unsupervised visits and ordered that Miller give Isabella over entirely, full custody, to live in Vermont with Jenkins. Late in 2009, Miller fled with her daughter, then age seven.
So, the courts gave full custody of the daughter to the partner of the biological mother. A woman who has no biological connection to the child, over the wishes of the child’s biological mother. This is the stuff that Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse is always warning us about. She wasn’t kidding.
And now, here’s the latest news about that story, from that same post:
Lisa Miller and Isabella got away successfully to Nicaragua, which does not have an extradition agreement with the United States for cases of kidnapping, or as in this case, “kidnapping.” Here, the “kidnapping” involves a mother trying to save her own child from being turned over to an entirely unrelated female sodomite to be raised.
As it turns out, though, the federal government joined in the fray. They have now caught and convicted Mennonite Pastor Kenneth Miller (no relation) of helping Lisa Miller in her escape. It sounds to my ears like there could be more trials and convictions on the horizon as well. Meanwhile, Jenkins has filed civil suit against the pastor and at least one other person who helped Lisa Miller to escape. Even if Jenkins never gets her trophy-child, her quest for revenge will not cease until she has destroyed the lives of all those who helped to thwart her pursuit of Lisa Miller and Isabella.
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse has argued that far from getting the government out of marriage, government’s decision to equate same-sex unions with opposite sex unions would open all kinds of government intervention into families.
This is a must-see debate! (And you can buy Michael Brown’s new book here if you like it – I bought two copies)
About the debate:
On April 21, 2011 at 7:30pm at UCF’s Health and Public Affairs Building (Room 119), Rollins College professor, Dr. Eric Smaw and author and seminary professor Dr. Michael L. Brown will debate the question “Should same sex marriage be legalized in America?” The event will be held at 4000 Central Florida Blvd and is open to the public. After the formal portion of the debate, Brown and Smaw will field questions from the audience.
About the speakers:
Dr. Smaw will be responding in the affirmative. He earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Law from the University of Kentucky in 2005. His areas of expertise are philosophy of law, international law, human rights, ethics, and modern philosophy. He has published articles on human rights, terrorism, and cosmopolitanism. His most recent publication is “Swaying in the Balance: Civil Liberties, National Security, and Justice in Times of Emergency”.
Dr. Brown will be responding in the negative. He earned his Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is a nationally known evangelical lecturer and radio host. He is the author of numerous scholarly articles and twenty books, including the recently published study “A Queer Thing Happened to America”, which is quickly being recognized as the definitive work on the history and effects of gay activism on American culture.
There is no compelling reasons by the state should change the definition of marriage
The reason the state conveys benefits for marriage is because marriage is beneficial for the state
Traditional marriage is recognized by the state for several reasons:
– it domesticates men
– it protects women
– it provides a stable, nurturing environment for children
Marriage has three public purposes:
– to bind men and women together for RESPONSIBLE procreation
– to get the benefit
– to provide children with two parents who are bonded to them biologically
– to create the next generation of people to keep the society going
Normally, opposite sex couples create children
Homosexual couples can NEVER create children together
Men and women are differences that are complementary
Monogamy is the norm for opposite sex couples.
For gay men, open relationships / cheating is the norm.
This is because women have a tempering effect on sexuality.
There is no evidence that recognizing same-sex civil unions and marriages have changed this trend.
Same-sex marriage guarantees that children will either not have a father or a mother
So which of the sexes is dispensable when raising children?
For example, consider Dawn Stefanowicz, who grew up with a gay father and no mother
She never got a chance to see a man model love and protect a women within a marriage
That makes an enormous difference in a woman’s life – in the way she relates to men
Even with scientific advancements, every baby has a mother and a father
If we change the definition of marriage so that it is based on consent, then why limit it to just two people
If marriage is not the union of male and female, then why have only TWO people
In Canada, you have civil liberties lawyers arguing for for polygamy
In the United States, Professor David Epstein was in a consensual relationship with his daughter
Should incestuous relationships also be celebrated as marriage? Why not?
Should polyamorous relationships also be celebrated as marriage? Why not?
Sexual orientation is not the same as race
Men are women are different in significant ways, but different races are not
You need separate bathrooms for men and women, but not for people of different races
Summary of Dr. Smaw’s opening speech: (He ended his speech after only 10 minutes)
You can redefine marriage so that it no longer based on the public purposes he mentioned (controlling procreation, fusing complementary male and female natures, providing children with mothers and fathers who are biologically linked to them, providing children with a comparatively stable development environment that offers comparatively less instability, promiscuity and domestic violence rates compared to cohabitation, etc.), but is instead based on consent and feelings, and that redefinition of marriage won’t open marriage up to polygamy, polyamory, etc.
If you like feminism, then you should allow same-sex marriage
If you like abortion rights, then you should allow same-sex marriage
Homosexuals participate in society by working at various jobs, so they are participating in society
Homosexuals should be given the same tax breaks as married people because they work at various jobs for money
Working at a job for money achieves the same public purpose as procreating and staying together to raise children in a stable environment
You can listen to the rest for the rebuttals, and cross-examination. Oh yes – there was cross-examination! It starts two thirds of the way through Part 5, if you want to jump to it. And sparks were flying! There is also Q&A from the audience of students.
This is such a great debate – I love to hear two passionate guys disagreeing about something. I love to hear both sides of the issues. There is always something to learn by listening to the other side. It makes me more effective and more tolerant when I stand up to defend my side of the argument.
WINTERY KNIGHT 