Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Transgender Exceptionalism Should Not Cloud Legal Analysis
9:10 AM ET

JURIST Guest Columnist Jennifer Levi, Transgender Rights Project Director at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, says that constitutional protections must be consistently upheld by our courts regardless of how marginalized or unpopular the person to whom they apply may be...

http://jurist.org/hotline/2012/10/jennifer-levi-grs-kosilek.php

The Kosilek ruling has been the subject of intense public and political criticism, with a number of high profile politicians reflexively speaking out in opposition to the decision. However, they have seemingly no knowledge or information about the medical condition, much less the facts of this particular case.

Media coverage and popular criticism has centered around three central themes. The first theme has been that GRS is inessential medical care. The second theme is that, as a convicted murderer, Michelle Kosilek should not receive medical care that those outside prison walls may not be able to afford. The third theme has been articulated less clearly, but is no less evident, and it is that no matter what anyone thinks about medical care or prison justice, there is no way to rationally understand how a transgender person in prison can be entitled to this care. I call this third theme "transgender exceptionalism."

One troubling feature of the criticism leveled at the Kosilek ruling is that nearly no one challenging it has read it. If they had, they would understand that, as to the first two themes about the medical nature of the treatment and the question of whether an incarcerated inmate must be provided such treatment, there is nothing new jurisprudentially in Wolf's opinion. Much of his decision reiterates what he found as legal and factual matters in a preliminary decision issued in the case over a decade ago — matters well-grounded in incontrovertible legal analysis.

Wow. Great article.

Everyone talks about how awful lawyers are, but it's refreshing when one of them sees an issue logically that everyone else seems to be getting emotional about.

The article failed to address what I feel is the real underlying issue with the way things are right now.

Currently, I can't afford GRS, it is simply out of my range of affordable options and chances are that will continue to be the case for at least the next few years. Despite the fact that the federal government, and state governments, clearly recognize it as a legitimate medical issue, and despite the fact that doctors and psychologists recognize it as a legitimate medical issue, insurance companies, both federalized and private, are not required to cover the cost of GRS. Why is prison healthcare better than that I can get on the street? Why is it that I would be better taken care of if I was in prison? That is just such a backwards, borked situation that its no surprise that people have their heads spinning over it. Now, should this woman be able to receive GRS despite being incarcerated? Sure. Great. Give her the surgery. For zero cost to her. But what about the rest of us? Where does that leave us? Where is our free surgery? How on earth does committing murder entitle anyone to better options then someone free and on the street? Where is the Justice in that?

Quote from: Sagebrush on October 18, 2012, 08:28:30 PM
Despite the fact that the federal government, and state governments, clearly recognize it as a legitimate medical issue, and despite the fact that doctors and psychologists recognize it as a legitimate medical issue, insurance companies, both federalized and private, are not required to cover the cost of GRS. Why is prison healthcare better than that I can get on the street?

State governments, psychiatrists, and doctors do not unanimously recognize transsexualism as a medical issue. This is a model that has only begun to gain serious traction over the last decade, and it will be at least another before it reaches mainstream acceptance.

Legal 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.

I guess I'm just impatient. Better go advertise my petition more.