Judge Grants Taxpayer-Funded Sex Change To Murder Convict

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered state prison officials to provide a taxpayer-funded sex-reassignment surgery to a transgender inmate serving life in prison for murder.

U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled in the case of Michelle Kosilek, who was born as a man but has received hormone treatments and lives as a woman in an all-male prison. Robert Kosilek was convicted of murder in the killing of his wife in 1990. Wolf is believed to be the first federal judge to order prison officials to provide the surgery for a transgender inmate.

Kosilek first sued the Massachusetts Department of Correction 12 years ago. Two years later, Wolf ruled that Kosilek was entitled to treatment for gender-identity disorder, but stopped short of ordering surgery. Kosilek sued again in 2005, arguing that the surgery is a medical necessity. In his ruling Tuesday, Wolf found that surgery is the “only adequate treatment” for Kosilek’s “serious medical need.”


Prison officials have repeatedly cited security risks in the case, saying that allowing her to have the surgery would make her a target for sexual assaults by other inmates. But Wolf found that the DOC’s security concerns are “either pretextual or can be dealt with by the DOC.” He said it is up to prison officials to decide how and where to house Kosilek after the surgery.

Did Judge Mark Wolf make the right decision in granting Michelle Kosilek a taxpayer-funded sex change? Feel free to air out your opinions via the comment box below!

Source: Yahoo News

Image: The Telegraph

Obamacare Upheld By The U.S. Supreme Court

In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court upheld his signature health care law’s individual insurance mandate in a 5-4 decision, upending speculation after hostile-seeming oral arguments in March that the justices would overturn the law. The mandate has been upheld as a tax, with Chief Justice John Roberts, a Bush appointee, joining the liberal wing of the court to save the law.

Twenty six states sued over the law, arguing that the individual mandate, which requires people to buy health insurance or face a fine starting in 2014, was unconstitutional. Opponents cast the individual mandate as the government forcing Americans to enter a market and buy a product against their will, while the government countered that the law was only regulating a market that everyone is already in, since almost everyone will seek health care at some point in his or her life.


Though the sweeping, 1,000-page plus law passed more than two years ago, much of it will not go into effect until 2014. That’s when states will have to set up their own health insurance exchanges, payroll taxes will go up on higher-income workers, and Americans will have to buy health insurance (for many, with a government subsidy) or pay a penalty of 1 percent of their income to the IRS. (The penalty increases to 2.5 percent by 2016.)

Employers who have more than 50 employees and don’t offer insurance will also begin to face a penalty. Insurers will no longer be able to turn away people with preexisting conditions, or charge people higher premiums based on their gender or health.

In August, health care plans will have to offer preventative services–including birth control–at no extra cost to customers. An estimated 32 million uninsured people will gain coverage under the law, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

So, let’s join the uproar: Are you for or against Obamacare? Tell us what you think of this health care law!

Source: Yahoo News

Image: Examiner