An inmate convicted of murder in 2002 has made it to the appeals court level with a suit against the California Corrections Department’s policy that “sexual reassignment surgery is not a covered benefit.” [KCBS]
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
by Walter Olson on April 27, 2011
An inmate convicted of murder in 2002 has made it to the appeals court level with a suit against the California Corrections Department’s policy that “sexual reassignment surgery is not a covered benefit.” [KCBS]
Tagged as: California, prisoners

Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.
{ 6 comments }
I think someone needs to explain the difference between “prison” and “Club Med” to somebody. You have NO right to elective surgery.
NEXT!
I’m sure it’s being argued that this is not elective surgery. It is surgery necessary for the mental well-being of the patient, without which s/he will suffer psychological torment. Thus, it is both cruel and unusual to deny the surgery.
Life is tough. Especially when you’re an inmate.
I wonder if it will also demand transfer to an all women correctional facility after the operation…
Or before.
Bob
John Hopkins did a study of those having sex-change operations many years ago. The idea was that some poor souls were in distress because of their sex status. The study indicated that the operations did’nt really improve the patient’s disposition.
See http://www.narth.com/docs/johnhopkins.html
Comments on this entry are closed.