Transgender inmate wins hearing appeal
Posted: Jan 28, 2013 6:13 PM EST Updated: Jan 28, 2013 6:13 PM EST
By Diane Walker
Posted by Shawn Maclauchlan
http://www.nbc12.com/story/20755967/transgender-inmate-wins-hearing-appeal (http://www.nbc12.com/story/20755967/transgender-inmate-wins-hearing-appeal)
RICHMOND, VA (WWBT) -
Another court victory for a transgender inmate.
Virginia inmate Ophelia De'lonta appears closer to getting a sex change - paid for by taxpayers.
The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Monday that De'lonta is entitled to a hearing, to determine whether the Virginia Department of Corrections violated her constitutional rights by not allowing her to be evaluated for the operation.
In a phone interview Monday, De'lonta said the unanimous appeals court ruling feels like being paroled.
"It's major," said De'lonta. "Finally, I can get what I need. That's just like making parole. Really. It's something that's very much overwhelming."
[...]
De'lonta could become the first in the nation to have state-funded sex change surgery to treat gender identity disorder and the compulsion to self castrate.
I find this discouraging. Until the State (taxpayers) pay for all sex change operations, I don't think it is right for a person who has been put in jail to have theirs paid for.
I don't think that someone who is in jail should get special treatment when so many trans people who are good citizens, and work hard can't afford the surgeries they need.
Quote from: Brooke777 on January 29, 2013, 11:53:22 AM
I don't think that someone who is in jail should get special treatment when so many trans people who are good citizens, and work hard can't afford the surgeries they need.
Agreed. Criminals get some of the best health care in the world. However prison sucks, i've been inside quite a few during my studies and can say I would never ever want to be in one even for the health care. The worst are the womens prisons...hope you like crabs infestations :icon_blah:
I agree with the previous posters...to an extent. It can be hard to swallow when so many of us struggle for our own surgeries only to have someone in prison to have the possibility to get it for free. But let me bring up a few points... If my knowledge is correct, isn't it true that most transgender inmates end up in the wrong prison because they don't have the correct parts they should have been assigned at birth? In that light, they suffer just as much when they are viewed as male when they are female or vice versa.
Another thing, I read the full article...and then I read the comments. It wasn't just focused on a transgender inmate getting tax-payed GRS. No, the argument was on whether it was an elective surgery or a necessity for someone who identified as transgender. That's where the struggle is, where the fight stands.
Quote from: MaidofOrleans on January 29, 2013, 12:25:55 PM
Agreed. Criminals get some of the best health care in the world. However prison sucks, I've been inside quite a few during my studies and can say I would never ever want to be in one even for the health care. The worst are the womens prisons...hope you like crabs infestations :icon_blah:
I too have been in quite a few prisons (due to a past employer, not being a criminal), and I can say for certain that US prisons are way too nice. The ones I have seen in other countries are far worse. I would gladly take crabs and be in a US prison that go through what happens in other ones.
I used to come down on the same side as the rest of society but not anymore. I even felt the same way as the Michelle kosilek case here in Massachusetts. My reasons were probably the same as a lot of others here and the thing was I was already transitioned. Free srs, bull crap! If I have to pay then so does everyone else!
I changed my mind and my heart when it began to occur to me that if we treat inmates as animals then what we get out are not reformed criminals but even more vicious animals. The way I see it these are inmates. Yes they did despicable things that they pay for with a total loss of freedom. But having no freedom doesn't mean they have no rights. No one gives up their rights when they walk into a prison they give up their freedom.
The same argument used on prisoners could be turned around and pointed back at us. If people on here say "no surgery" then how will you feel when those same people say to you "no surgery". Will it be fair then? If you had to wait 20 years to transition and have surgery would that work for you? Yes? No?
Either we learn that we must treat our fellow transgender citizens with some level of compassion, even the ones in prison, or we may find that we are no better than the people who arbitrarily decided who got this surgery like it was 30 years ago when shrinks decided who was feminine enough to have the surgery. They are kindred spirits no matter what bad things they may have done.
I am on the fence when it comes to inmates being allowed to have SRS.
Being disabled I think that they may open some doors for me, in that if the state has to pay for them, Then I should be allowed the same privilege. I live in a nursing home not a prison. They should not have rights that I seem not to have.
Hugs,
Bethany
At least she probably doesn't get to choose her surgeon.
Quote from: Bethany Dawn on January 29, 2013, 03:40:31 PM
I am on the fence when it comes to inmates being allowed to have SRS.
Being disabled I think that they may open some doors for me, in that if the state has to pay for them, Then I should be allowed the same privilege. I live in a nursing home not a prison. They should not have rights that I seem not to have.
Hugs,
Bethany
My view is very simple on this. This is a medically necessary procedure and it should be covered under all insurance. The overall cost to society for transgender care versus say obesity, diabetes, addiction etc is almost ridiculously minuscule, since I work in health care I will say this. I see that in 2013 that the age old "transgender exclusion" is starting to go away. A lot of medical plans are changing. With the new gender dysphoria diagnosis, that exclusion will go away once it's fully implemented. My wonderful state of Massachusetts has spent $25 million dollars denying Michelle Kosilek surgery. When do I as a taxpayer get to say enough is enough? How many surgeries could have been covered by that fee that was paid to swarms of lawyers as opposed to real medical treatment? Michelle could have 1,000 vaginoplasties for what it will cost for 1. I personally am 100% opposed to denying medical treatment to any transgender person under any circumstance even if they are incarcerated.
The only real problem I see is that, even if Srs, hormones and therapy are covered items the rest of a gender transition (hair removal, other surgeries such as breast augmentation, trachea shaves, vocal chord surgeries and FFS) are not covered. In the end it means that this is still going to be a very expensive proposition for those less fortunate in life.
If I look at things this way, then it's all equal. If we all have access to treatment means there is no difference between myself and an inmate or someone living on public assistance. The only real question is, for the less fortunate they either put up with facial hair and shaving or take a really long time to complete a transition. In that case what happens if they want to be productive members of society but cannot because they only completed the medical part of the transition? Society may accept genital surgery as a cure, but society is not ready to accept non passing women with beards, etc. in fact I am not sure society would even accept such a proposition in a hundred, thousand or even ever amount of years.
Hey Zumbagirl,
I too live in Massachusetts.
I understand and respect your view on this, And yes the amount the state has paid in legal fees is absurd.
But there might be some good to come from this. The following was taking from http://www.wcvb.com/news/politics/State-Representative-wants-free-sex-change-operations-for-all-Massachusetts-residents/-/9848766/17964058/-/ej2osrz/-/index.html (http://www.wcvb.com/news/politics/State-Representative-wants-free-sex-change-operations-for-all-Massachusetts-residents/-/9848766/17964058/-/ej2osrz/-/index.html)
ANDOVER, Mass. —Andover State Rep. James Lyons is so outraged at a ruling requiring the state to pay the lawyers' fees of a convicted murderer who wants a sex change that he plans to file a bill that would give all Massachusetts residents the same legal benefits, the Eagle-Tribune reported.
{..}
U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled in her favor in September and ordered the state to fund the operation. The judge also ordered the state to pay Kosilek's legal expenses, which Lombardo estimated exceed $700,000.
Lyons told the newspaper that if the state is going to be forced to pay a convicted murderer's legal fees resulting from a demand for a sex change, then the Legislature should consider extending that privilege to every Massachusetts resident.
"This is an issue of fundamental fairness," Lyons said. "The hard working citizens who follow the rules and pay their taxes do not qualify for benefits like this. If we provide extravagant benefits like this to a vicious murderer, then why deny them to the law abiding citizenry? It's a simple matter of fairness and justice."
Lyons did not directly answer the question of whether he thought the bill would pass.
This is just a political stunt being orchestrated by the Republican Party in ma. It has no chance of passing. They are just doing it to prove the same point I did. It would have cost the taxpayers 1000 times less than it has so far than to just pay. It's still not over. There will be more appeals. The whole thing is utterly ridiculous for a state that calls itself progressive.
It would be cheaper to release the prisoner, then let them pay for their own surgery.
There's a high percentage of us M->-bleeped-<-s here on Susan's! I'm in Weymouth. I wonder if states did pick up the tab, would the media give out the names and pictures of everyone seeking SRS on public funds, like they do with these inmates?
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on January 29, 2013, 05:41:36 PM
There's a high percentage of us M->-bleeped-<-s here on Susan's! I'm in Weymouth. I wonder if states did pick up the tab, would the media give out the names and pictures of everyone seeking SRS on public funds, like they do with these inmates?
Well, they would now after you done gave them the idea...
Quote from: Zumbagirl on January 29, 2013, 05:30:56 PM
This is just a political stunt being orchestrated by the Republican Party in ma. It has no chance of passing. They are just doing it to prove the same point I did.
Oh I know that; but one can dream can't they?
I'm going to disagree with the prevailing sentiment that if the rest of us have to pay for SRS, then prisoners should have to also.
I hope no one hates me because of this.
Sure it would be good if everyone had their SRS paid by the state.
But in the case of prisoners, they can't earn the money they need to relieve their dysphoria. Those opportunities don't exist in prison. It's either get SRS paid for or be stuck in a body that disgusts them.
We can find a job that rewards our talents and earn money to pay for our surgeries and then find a doctor who will accept the money. When we lock up a prisoner, we take those options away from her.
I know this makes people unhappy but I really feel for transgender prisoners who are given no way to make their body right.
OK, braintwister time! If someone robs a bank to pay for SRS, but gets caught, should they get the SRS in prison?
If we were a rich nation with extra money then I think it could be considered. In reality this nation is poor. We dont see how poor we are because we see the illusion of being rich by living on a credit card. The governement borrows 46% of its expenditures on a credit card. We are the worlds largest debtor nation. Our nations debt is nearing 200% of GNP. The annual deficit is over 1 trillion. The national debt is 16 trillion +. The unemployment in reality is over 10% +. There are higher priorities IMO.
We have financial issues, but we are a developed nation. Not having clean water, roads, and health services is poor. Dying of starvation and disease is poor. That's the reality for a lot of people.
I wonder if having tax dollars pay for inmates surgeries helps or hurts "our public image" in general or if it doesn't have any effect at all. I agree that it's unfair that they have their surgery paid for because they are a criminal but overall could it possibility help us or just hurt us?
Quote from: EmmaS on January 29, 2013, 06:50:28 PM
I wonder if having tax dollars pay for inmates surgeries helps or hurts "our public image" in general or if it doesn't have any effect at all. I agree that it's unfair that they have their surgery paid for because they are a criminal but overall could it possibility help us or just hurt us?
Well, I was actually talking to one of my friends about this today. She is a total supporter of trans rights, and has an aunt who is trans (not to mention me as a good friend). She was totally outraged at this and it actually hurt the trans community's standing in her eyes. So, I think it will not end well for us as more trans people go for this.
I suppose that would be my guess too, the public already has negative connotations from what I can tell already and then talking about using hard working tax dollars for inmates, specifically ones for the surgery makes me believe the public might be a little annoyed and upset.
Quote from: EmmaS on January 29, 2013, 06:50:28 PM
I wonder if having tax dollars pay for inmates surgeries helps or hurts "our public image" in general or if it doesn't have any effect at all. I agree that it's unfair that they have their surgery paid for because they are a criminal but overall could it possibility help us or just hurt us?
Rosa park could have knuckled under and sat on the back of the bus, but she didn't because she knew that segregation was wrong. Maybe sitting in the front of the bus was wrong in the eyes of society but that didn't mean societies point of view was right.
Forget about criminal or not, how about plain old human decency. Where does this enter the picture. These people are still people. They are human and to leave them suffering is utterly inhuman. They are after all one of us. Sometimes someone has to take a position that makes people or society feel uncomfortable but that still doesn't mean that while we discuss this we should treat our fellow humans with a lack of compassion. Otherwise what kind of society are we?
We are a society that treats criminals better than the people that were victimized by them. How far do we bend over to placate those who broke the very basc rules of that society? What happens when an inmate insists they need caviar or they will suffer unfairly? There need to be limits on what people who are being punished can demand. I don't know where these cases fall in relation to that line.
Yeah I agree criminals are people as well, but they aren't being mistreated while in jail, if anything they have more rights then they should have. Is it really fair that they have their surgery paid for and we are stuck paying thousands of dollars? While I wish the US paid for it's citizens for the surgery, I don't think the best way to get to that goal is to start by paying for inmates, why not use those tax dollars to start paying for transgender individuals who don't break the law?
Someone smarter than me already answered that before. Inmates get free attorneys and they have nothing but free time. The yous and mes of the world scrape by and can't afford to pay a lawyer for ten years to challenge Supreme Court rulings.
Okay, I can see both sides.
For--> You can't call SRS a medically necessary procedure and deny it to transgender inmates. Doing so implies that it's not vital.
Against--> US prisons are too good to be called prison. 3 square meals a day, plenty of free time, free heat, free electricity, free bed, pillow, and sheets, and free healthcare. It's not fair that people outside of prison can't get free SRS and live happily.
I would be totally okay with inmates getting the surgery paid for eventually in the US, I just think people like myself and everyone else who doesn't break the law should receive the funding first and then go from there. I think it looks bad if we use our tax dollars to pay for inmates surgeries that we can't even use for the rest of us who abide by the law.
Quote from: EmmaS on January 29, 2013, 10:08:02 PM
I would be totally okay with inmates getting the surgery paid for eventually in the US, I just think people like myself and everyone else who doesn't break the law should receive the funding first and then go from there. I think it looks bad if we use our tax dollars to pay for inmates surgeries that we can't even use for the rest of us who abide by the law.
Well said.
The likelihood is that the original decision will be overturned on appeal in the Federal Court of Appeals. Common sense usually prevails in the higher courts. Usually.
Quote from: Zumbagirl on January 29, 2013, 08:48:31 PM
Forget about criminal or not, how about plain old human decency. Where does this enter the picture? These people are still people. They are human and to leave them suffering is utterly inhuman. They are after all one of us. Sometimes someone has to take a position that makes people or society feel uncomfortable but that still doesn't mean that while we discuss this we should treat our fellow humans with a lack of compassion. Otherwise what kind of society are we?
I suggest we ask the late Cheryl Kosilek about Michelle's "human decency"?
And if this is an issue orchestrated by the Republican Party, why did both Rep. Barney Frank and now-Sen. Elizabeth Warren, both Democrats in Massachusetts, come out against the ruling?
It seems to me that imprisonment is designed as a punishment, for criminal activity, not a reward.
All of the comments I have read make me feel sad. Maybe I shouldn't have joined this forum. Oh well, I've said my peace. >:(
I have an enormous amount of sympathy for the prevailing view in this thread—and bristle at the inherent unfairness—but I also think it is reactionary and short-sighted, and believe this bears repeating:
Quote from: lycheeblossom on October 19, 2012, 12:41:37 AMLegal progress in the United States is made by setting precedents; every time a victory like this is achieved in court, however undeserving its beneficiary may appear, the chances that insurance companies will eventually be forced to cover the cost of transition/GRS increase significantly.
Conversely, every time medical intervention is deemed unnecessary for an incarcerated trans person by a court of law, the likelihood that coverage for surgical procedures for trans people will be provided by insurance companies is set back significantly.
Quote from: lycheeblossom on January 30, 2013, 05:45:48 AM
Conversely, every time medical intervention is deemed unnecessary for an incarcerated trans person by a court of law, the likelihood that coverage for surgical procedures for trans people will be provided by insurance companies is set back significantly.
At least there is one other person who gets it :)
I should also add that prisons should strive to be as rehabilitative as they are punitive (for the record: I do not believe that every criminal can be rehabilitated), and that the spectrum of imprisonable offenses is extremely broad, and at least a small percentage of prisoners are innocent of the crimes for which they have been incarcerated. To deny basic meals and medical care is cruel, inhumane, and in itself criminal.
Anyone who thinks that the basic amenities provided in prison make it anything less than a torturously unpleasant experience should check in for a stay of their own and report back to us.
I agree, BASIC meals, BASIC medical care, and a BASIC living arrangements (bed, toilet, shower) are all necessary. But, the luxury accommodations that many prisoners in the US get is ridiculous. I have known people who commit crimes just to go to prison because it is a better life on the inside than it is on the out. I am all for rehabilitating them, and providing reward systems for those who excel in the rehabilitation process. But the treatment they get is far too nice.
Now, in my mind, a murderer and/or a rapist has already given up their right to humane treatment when they committed such a heinous act against another human being.
Quote from: Brooke777 on January 30, 2013, 10:45:16 AM
Now, in my mind, a murderer and/or a rapist has already given up their right to humane treatment when they committed such a heinous act against another human being.
What about crimes of passion, or a violent confrontation gone wrong? What about people convicted but are really innocent? There have been a lot people exonerated by DNA evidence or recanted testimony. If a person is wrongly convicted and sent to jail and is late released upon proof of innocence, would it still have been morally okay to deny an innocent person medical treatment while they were waiting to be cleared of a crime? If the answer is no then who gets to decide?
I won't deny that there are horrible sociopathic monsters in this world, but I don't think that because someone is in prison means they are automatically monsters. Like the old computer-ism: garbage in, garbage out. I really don't think a society that's believes: animals in, animals out for a prison philosophy has much hope for a bright future especially a society that has more imprisoned people than the height of soviet communism.
Quote from: Zumbagirl on January 30, 2013, 11:52:53 AM
What about crimes of passion, or a violent confrontation gone wrong? What about people convicted but are really innocent? There have been a lot people exonerated by DNA evidence or recanted testimony. If a person is wrongly convicted and sent to jail and is late released upon proof of innocence, would it still have been morally okay to deny an innocent person medical treatment while they were waiting to be cleared of a crime? If the answer is no then who gets to decide?
I won't deny that there are horrible sociopathic monsters in this world, but I don't think that because someone is in prison means they are automatically monsters. Like the old computer-ism: garbage in, garbage out. I really don't think a society that's believes: animals in, animals out for a prison philosophy has much hope for a bright future especially a society that has more imprisoned people than the height of soviet communism.
I really do agree that prison needs to rehabilitate the inmates, and help them become the best people possible. Also, they deserve basic medical treatment. It is a very difficult thing for me (this is just me) to even have a clue on how to decide if SRS is medically necessary or not.
I do not however believe in crimes of passion. If you cannot control yourself enough to not kill someone when you are really upset, then you deserve to be in prison. As for self defense, that is not murder. You may kill your assailant, but you did not murder them. During that type of confrontation, you are not thinking about ending their life, you are thinking about preserving yours. Trust me, I have been there many times and killing them never once entered my mind.
Completely agree with Brooke, just think we need SRS first.
What about an innocent person wrongly convicted? Is your philosophy as simple as: that's tough. Sucks to be you?
Our justice system is flawed indefinitely, but I'm pretty sure the heavy majority of inmates are guilty, but as for the few who are innocent and for whatever reason are in jail, that is an injustice to them and just shows a flaw. I think the concept of innocent before proven guilty has been lost and it's more guilty unless proven innocent which is unfair.
Quote from: Zumbagirl on January 30, 2013, 01:59:10 PM
What about an innocent person wrongly convicted? Is your philosophy as simple as: that's tough. Sucks to be you?
No, its not. But, I don't believe that those who did commit the crime should be rewarded with better accommodations just to suit those who were wrongfully convicted. I will be the first to admit that our legal/justice system is far, far from perfect. If it was perfect, no one would be wrongfully convicted, no one would get off on a technicality, and law enforcement would always catch the bad guy before they committed another crime.
Quote from: EmmaS on January 30, 2013, 02:15:23 PM
I think the concept of innocent before proven guilty has been lost and it's more guilty unless proven innocent which is unfair.
I totally agree with this. It is quite sad, IMHO, that we have lost our way in this area.
Keep in mind, there pretty much has to an assumption of guilt before someone is even arrested for a crime, so the whole innocent before proven has always been just a nice thing to say, but not really true.
There is a sentiment of innocent until proven guilty. The point is that while you are suspected, no one can actually convict you until you are proven guilty. The point is to remain a suspect, meaning that there is a possibility that the accuser can be wrong.
Quote from: Zumbagirl on January 30, 2013, 01:59:10 PM
What about an innocent person wrongly convicted? Is your philosophy as simple as: that's tough. Sucks to be you?
In the United States there are approximately 2.3 million people incarcerated, and another 5.0 million under some sort of supervision (parole, probation).
The number of people who are released each year because the were "wrongly convicted" is so low, that it is statistically insignificant.
Establishing prison policy around the unlikely chance an innocent person will be incarcerated is self-defeating.
I'll go back to what I said earlier, If and when the government pays for ALL gender surgery, then I won't have a problem with prisoners getting it.
Until then they do Not deserve better healthcare then we get.
Quote from: Sarah Louise on January 31, 2013, 09:29:05 AM
Until then they do Not deserve better healthcare then we get.
I paid almost every single penny of my own money on my transition. About the only thing I could get covered was a handful of therapy sessions every year. Every year I see my endo and pay the bill on the way out the door. I pay for the bloodwork although I have noticed in the last few years my insurance covered it. My depo-estradiol has never been covered under any insurance and I have paid for it all myself for the last 15 odd years. YET I never complained that I want this or that thing for free. I just worked harder and it made it all the better since I never had to depend on the kindness of strangers.
Other than that I was on my own including my srs. These people are seeing shrinks and getting the letters and approvals just like I did so I say why not?
In my mind the srs itself was not the expensive part of the transition anyways. If the state or government health care system offers it as a covered service and they met all of the requirements then why not? The system is changing anyways and more and more insurance is covering the surgery anyways. I guess there are enough of us in the world that the old prejudiced views are dying off.
Still I have no problem with it being covered by taxpayers. I guess I must be one of the few who see this as a positive step forward for the cause?
I am with ZumbaGirl on this entire argument. We MUST put emotional reactions and personal judgement aside to see the real issues at play here. We have a transgender inmate who identified as trans BEFORE being imprisoned, and we have a justice system, political system, and prison system trying to define medically necessary treatment as simply hormone therapy and nothing more.
As all of us know, not all trans people will require SRS/GRS, but those who do should have it. Zumba Girl made a good point when she talked about the power of others to decide that YOU can't have your surgery based on arbitrary reasoning. Let us ask ourselves what has gone so wrong in our culture and so wrong in our hearts that we can easily look away and pretend not to see that people in a prison who have made bad choices and may or may not be guilty of whatever crimes they were convicted of, are still human beings deserving of mercy, compassion, and kindness?
Do not forget that any of us can easily be accused of any given crime at any time, and end up in the system. Our system of trial and conviction is a joke! Do any of you know that it is sooo easy for the state to try and convict someone on any given criminal charge that there is no credibility in convictions anymore? We can guess all we want that the heavy weight of the prison population is guilty all we want, but, we HAVE to stop right there! The reason is obvious!
To deny someone medical care simply because of a criminal conviction and because they are in prison is tantamount to 8th and 14th amendment violations. There has to be medically necessary treatment, it has to be done via due process and equal protection of the law.
Zumba Girl has personally taken on the one remaining vocal force in her state who wants to deny all of us our gender identities (if memory serves me right) in the form of "she who shall not be named" and did it at great personal risk since "she who shall not be named" is quite off her rocker as she has clearly demonstrated to all of us on an international basis. Before you deny someone medical treatment that they absolutely need, simply based on criminal history or being in a prison...think about your own life, put yourself in this inmate's shoes, and decide how YOU would want to be treated.
Maybe this is a GOOD thing, because if Kosilek gets her surgery for free, it could open the doors for all trans-identified people to have access to SRS/GRS in the non-prison sector of society for free. I think a society should absolutely take care of its population with needs when they can't pay for it. GRS/SRS is NOT an elective thing, it isn't cosmetic, it isn't a fetish, this is very real.
It is not very easy to convict someone of a crime. I know this from personal experience. I am former Federal Law Enforcement. The amount of work that went into each conviction is stagering. To ensure we had the right person we would investigate them for months if not years. If there was any doubt in any of our minds we would continue to investigate. Please, do not sell law enforcement short.
The US is a long way away from universal health care. Due to this, I think law abiding citizens should receive medical care before criminals. I do not understand why criminals can get better medical care than the majority of the US population. For the most part, only upper middle class and upper class citizens can afford all the medical care they need. Until this type of problem is fixed, criminals do not deserve better treatment than the rest of us.
To me, it all boils down to this: Health care should not be charged. It should be something that nations prioritize in over such things as weapons. It comes down to the fact that money is spent and squandered each and every way for every frivolity and the reality is that what matters most is more often than not neglected.
I read all of these posts before mine and can't help to think how lucky I am to be living in Canada. Even though our system has some flaws, we do have excellent health coverage. I'm really lucky that it is in place because even without the gender disphoria, I'd be in a sorry state indeed without it, being a chronic bronchitic asthmatic. It it was not for that coverage... who knows where I would be now?
I think that the inmate should be made to work to some measure to obtain the SRS. It could be anything, really, anything both to teach them how to reinsert in society and to show them that there is nothing given in life.
Still, my heart goes out to all my brothers and sisters out there who suffer living in the wrong gender because of lack of funds to be able to get HRT or SRS. And to all of those who spilled sweat and blood to be able to live in the gender they were meant to have all along.
Australia seems to be a little different with our jail system (or is it goal Poms for ya!) We don't have the 3 strikes your out rule here, we try to rehabilitate the people that are in jail. Most of the people that I know that have been to jail, are only in for driving or assult charges and drugs growing/dealing charges. We do not lock people up for being on drugs, we try to help them get off the drugs. Looking in from the outside from another country, the USA seems very hard on victimless crimes IE: drug users. I understand that more serious crime should be punished but the USA seems very harsh with the criminal code!
In Australia we have a safety net for medication for people that have a health care card supplyed by the gov. Once you reach $1500.00 then the medication becomes free. A lot of medication is on the PBS seem, asthma medication etc. The gov supplies the medication at a reduced price depending on the medication. For example my depression tablets only cost me $5.90Au or Panamax pain relief tablets cost me $5.90 for 3 box's of 100 tablets, same for my wife's asthma medication, save us a lot of money. Some of the medication is very expensive and the people that really need it would not be able to have access if it were not for the health system that Australia has in place, got to love Australia!
As far as surgery costs go, they can be claimed back through the tax system, seeing that 1 of my friends had srs she was able to claim most of her surgery costs at tax time. She thought this to be fantastic!
So like all country's we have good points and bad points, but at least we have a free health system, even if it's not the best, but we still have one!
Reminder of Rule 15
Quote
15. Items under discussion shall be confined to the subject matter at hand, members shall avoid taking the other users posts personally, and/or posting anything that can reasonably be construed as a personal attack.
News Admin
Quote from: Zythyra on February 11, 2013, 09:59:42 AM
Reminder of Rule 15
News Admin
:( I'm worried now, did I write anything that could be insulting to anyone? ??? ??? ???
Quote from: OlivierDeSillegue on February 11, 2013, 12:42:55 PM
:( I'm worried now, did I write anything that could be insulting to anyone? ??? ??? ???
Not to worry, the posts in question were deleted.
These cases are mainly because prison authorities haven't consider at all more humane placement practices. They are currenly seeking a case law precedent to make sex classification solely based on the precence of the y-chromsome.
I haven't been here for a good while, and just logged in to see that I had a warning for something that I allegedly said in this thread. Whatever it was that was taken as offensive, please allow my apologies, as I did not intend to come off that way. I want my fellow posters here and the moderators here to know that I respect others, and am sorry again for whatever it was that got taken as offensive.