Oh, how quickly it is forgetten that O'Reilly was vehemently in favor of a case like Jenna Talackova. Whether that remains to be seen because of Jenna's attractiveness is another story, but don't act like O'Reilly is biased against you. Yes, there are other cases of blatant Fox News disrespect from other hosts throughout the station's history. This is a story about Bill O'Reilly, and his show,
The O'Reilly Factor, and to a lesser extent
America Live hostess Megyn Kelly. The story and this discussion thread should not be about Fox News as a whole. After all, marginalizing one group is what you dislike that some groups do to you; why do so in return? Payback such as that is never the solution; it accomplishes nothing except further distancing between groups.
EDIT: Or even Megyn Kelly, 9/1/11,
America Live, concerning Chaz Bono's appearance on
Dancing with the Stars: "The transgendered, they go through so much pain and emotional turmoil in dealing with the effects of that disorder or whatever you want to call it and I don't think they need people piling on and mocking them once they do something that many people consider very brave. But that's me, that's my two cents."
Another thing? Kosilek is a murderer, with the victim being Kosilek's (now ex-) wife, Cheryl McCaul, by strangling her with a wire, then hiding McCaul's body in the back of Kosilek's trunk (
Boston Globe, by Brian McGregory, "A test case for change", June 13th, 2000). Why? Simply because McCaul was unhappy Kosilek was wearing her clothes (
Kosilek v. Spencer, 2012). No respect for Kosilek because of that. Furthermore, criticizing the fact that Kosilek had the state cover the surgery is far from a horrible act, on two levels. That isn't even to mention the tragedy and sorrow I feel for the McCaul family.
First and foremost, in what way should the state cover SRS for a convicted felon? For being a normal citizen of Massachusetts, this would not be covered under the majority of Massachusetts state healthcare plans. Why should a jailed person (in this case, person being any hypothetical John/Jane Doe) get special treatment of any surgery not covered under their existing healthcare plans, if applicable? Because the felon is going to prison? Puh-lease. If Kosilek wanted to avoid the risks and perils that prison brings, then Kosilek should not have committed murder. This is not possession of illegal drugs, this is not assault, this is not driving under the influence; this is killing someone! Simply put, I feel the state of Massachusetts should have given the free SRS to someone who is a good, law-abiding citizen, who otherwise could not afford it.
Second, and of lesser importance is Fox News itself, as being right wing biased; I know and admit this as a Libertarian who watches enough of Fox News to know that. This bears stating because part of Conservative (and, subsequently, Republican) ideology, whether you like it or not, is that you should not be bailed out for your own mistakes and actions. Granting such a surgery as a result of this murder would likely fall under the aforementioned bailouts, if you ask Atheist Republicans. The proper way of handling such a course under laws should be shown in the state or town/city's laws, like the recent development in the city of San Fransisco. Since this is not the case in Kosilek's case, and presumably not covered under Kosliek's healthcare, if applicable the option should SRS should remain, however, paid fully out of pocket, not any at all from the state.
Additionally, the precedent in former cases, such as
Battista v. Clarke and
Soneeya v. Spencer have denied such claims for those sentenced and asking for such medical treatment and operations.
Fields v. Smith may have claimed disagreement with wanton conduct of 8th Amendment rights as warning precedent of prisoner healthcare, but traditionally, it would be argued that such medical items would be covered under traditional statewide healthcare lists. SRS should be so, in my opinion, but as it stands in the US, it is currently not, unlike stability pills and anti-depressants.
I will say this, the bit about the male prison is misleading, based on the state's policies of surgical status affecting birth certificate, and appropriate prison arrangements. Text itself makes it unclear if this was said in a joking matter or a serious one, so I can't analyze
Megyn's statement as well as I'd like to do so here. If this was a joke, it has possible tangibility; Kosilek has been taking hormones since 2003, without assault or engaging in other sexual activity at MCI Norfolk (
Kosilek v. Spencer, 2012), had not been before hormones, prior to 2002, as well (possibly something happened in 2002?).
Before you think I'm a horrible person: I'd feel bad for the person going to jail in a case like this if the crime was less extreme, not beyond a reasonable doubt, but not when the discussion involves a murderer, without parole, well beyond a reasonable doubt.
Of note, I found this interesting, unrelated to my stance of the issue:
Kosilek I determines Gender Identity Disorder "Is biological and innate, and not a result of choice or upbringing." That is a Massachusetts state court conclusion, and given Judge Wolf's decision to grant such a surgery, wouldn't that mean the Massachusetts state healthcare and its providers be required to cover such a surgery, given the court's precedent? Thereby, that would close any given loopholes stating "elective" or "cosmetic" when referring to SRS, given the state court's official wording.
This is Jessica, future lawyer, at your service.
