Americans have long been aware that the political left in America wants certain citizens to pay for the health care of certain other citizens through confiscatory tax collection. Famously promiscuous Democrat shill Sandra Fluke embraced the idea that responsible taxpayers should foot the bill for irresponsible leeches to have consequence-free sex.
The Democrat Party’s own platform called for abortion-on-demand, whether or not the expectant murderer is able to afford the “medical procedure.”
Still, as abhorrent as I find their position, people are entitled to differ about what they think government (translation: you and me) should provide in a free society. Allow me to emphasize the word “free” because a Massachusetts federal judge’s recent decision somehow fabricated the right for convicted murderers to receive taxpayer-funded sex change operations while incarcerated.
Convicted of the 1990 murder of his wife, the inmate apparently decided his life sentence would be more enjoyable with a pair of breasts and a vagina.
I can’t even really blame a convict for requesting ludicrous benefits while in prison, if for no other reason than to get a respite from the monotonous daily life behind bars. What I cannot rationalize, though, is the bleeding heart judge responsible for deciding an individual is actually entitled to frivolous and expensive procedures such as a sex change operation.
In the judge’s ruling, he wrote the murderer should receive the operation, calling it the “only adequate treatment” for his “serious medical need.”
Removing and replacing genitalia is now a serious medical need? Out here in the free world, insurers typically refuse coverage for such procedures, identifying them as elective rather than an emergency.
Speaking on his own behalf in an Associated Press interview, the prospective “woman” said his fellow inmates “who have bad hearts, hips or knees have surgery to repair those things,” adding his “medical needs are no less important or more important” than theirs.
I’m not suggesting we deny all medical treatment to prisoners; but when a free person, funding his or her own insurance, is not covered for an elective procedure, I am offended to think that same taxpayer must pay for a killer to receive it instead.
Liberal media outlets sought to portray the judge’s decision as a step forward for their inclusive worldview and rushed to print the glowing endorsement of a spokesperson for the Transgender Law Center in San Fransisco. A San Fransisco-based law firm with the word “transgender” in its name is in favor of this decision? Color me surprised!
The vast majority of individuals outside of that particular law firm seem to be echoing Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown’s assertion that providing the surgery constitutes “an outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars.”
Photo credit: joshbousel (Creative Commons)
- A Connection Between 3 Mass Murderers And Valerie Jarrett? I do believe that I may have stumbled upon something…
- Judge To Taxpayers: You’ll Pay For Murderer’s Sex Change To the annals of liberal judicial activism add another subheading:…