Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

APNewsBreak: Inmate asks high court to hear sex-change case

Posted by on Mar. 16, 2015 at 5:02 PM
  • 4 Replies
APNewsBreak: Inmate asks high court to hear sex-change case

BOSTON — Lawyers for a transgender inmate convicted of murder asked the U.S. Supreme Court Monday to overturn a ruling denying her request for sex-reassignment surgery.

A federal judge ordered the Massachusetts Department of Correction to grant the surgery to Michelle Kosilek in 2012, finding that it was the "only adequate treatment" for Kosilek's severe gender dysphoria, also known as gender-identity disorder. That ruling was overturned in December by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Lawyers with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders told The Associated Press they asked the Supreme Court to grant a hearing or to reverse the ruling by the appeals court. They argue that the appeals court did not find "clear error" in the judge's ruling granting the surgery and therefore had no legal basis to overturn it.

Kosilek, born Robert Kosilek, is serving a life sentence for killing spouse Cheryl McCaul in 1990.

Now 65, Kosilek has fought to get the surgery for two decades. In 2002, Judge Mark Wolf found that the treatment Kosilek was receiving in prison was inadequate, but stopped short of ordering the surgery, finding that the Department of Correction had not violated her Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. After that, prison officials began to provide hormone treatments, electrolysis to remove facial hair, female clothing and personal items.

In 2005, Kosilek sued the Department of Correction again, arguing that the surgery was a medical necessity.

In 2012, Wolf became the first judge in the country to order sex-reassignment surgery as a remedy for an inmate's gender-identity disorder. Courts in other states have ordered hormone treatments, psychotherapy and other treatments, but not surgery. Wolf found that the Department of Correction had violated the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment by providing inadequate medical care to Kosilek.

A three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Wolf's ruling, but the state appealed, citing security concerns about protecting Kosilek from sexual assaults if she completes her gender transition. She is currently housed in an all-male prison, but hopes to be transferred to the state's women's prison after the surgery.

In December, a divided appeals court overturned the ruling by a 3-2 vote.

Kosilek's lawyers argue that the appeals court overstepped its bounds and essentially re-tried the case.

"Their role is to defer to the trial judge on issues of fact," said Jennifer Levi, director of the Transgender Rights Project of GLAD, the Boston-based legal group that brought the lawsuit that led to Massachusetts becoming the first state in the country to legalize gay marriage.

"The meaning of the Eighth Amendment is only as rich as its application, so those words that require prisons to provide adequate medical care are hollow if you have a district judge that makes the kind of careful fact findings that Judge Wolf did who is then reversed on appeal without a demonstration of the error in his facts," Levi said.

Kosilek's lawyers also argue that the Eighth Amendment prohibits prison officials from denying necessary medical treatment to an inmate for non-medical reasons, including security concerns.

It is unclear when the Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case. The court receives between 7,500 and 8,000 new cases in a term and agrees to review roughly 1 percent of those appeals.
by on Mar. 16, 2015 at 5:02 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-4):
MeAndTommyLee
by Angie on Mar. 16, 2015 at 6:28 PM
1 mom liked this
Cruel and unusual punishment? That's one stretch I can't make.
LivinTheDream3
by Bronze Member on Mar. 16, 2015 at 6:36 PM
2 moms liked this

Prisoners are treated much more fairly than they should be at the expense of taxpayers. 

Giving this guy women's clothing and personal items along with electrolysis to remove unwanted facial hair is ridiculous; as is this appeal.

broboxer
by Platinum Member on Mar. 16, 2015 at 7:26 PM
The liberal courts here approved his taxpayer funded sex change. Then I had hope restored when he lost on appeal. Now, I have a feeling he's going to get this surgery at our expense.

Quoting LivinTheDream3:

Prisoners are treated much more fairly than they should be at the expense of taxpayers. 


Giving this guy women's clothing and personal items along with electrolysis to remove unwanted facial hair is ridiculous; as is this appeal.

meriana
by Ruby Member on Mar. 16, 2015 at 9:28 PM
1 mom liked this

I hope the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case or if it does, upholds the Appelate Court ruling. It's beyond ridiculous that this guy even thinks he should be somehow entitled to sex change surgery at the taxpayers expense. Prison isn't there in order to afford one things they didn't or for whatever reason, couldn't do for themselves, it's not there to make one's life better, it's punishment for breaking the law and, in this case, committing murder, with the hope that the offender, if ever released, will choose to live better and appreciate the freedom to do so and that includes sex change surgery at their OWN expense.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)