Taxpayers should fund trans surgery for inmate who murdered baby

[pellinore]

Taxpayers must fund sex reassignment surgery for an inmate who murdered an 11-month-old baby, a judge in Indiana has ruled.

Born Jonathan C Richardson, the inmate now known as Autumn Cordellionè is serving a 55-year prison sentence after being convicted of murder by strangulation in 2001. The victim was Cordellionè’s stepdaughter.

The inmate has sought sex reassignment surgery, including an orchiectomy and vaginoplasty, arguing it is the “only remedy” to treat “persistent gender dysphoria”.

The state of Indiana prohibits its prison service from funding gender reassignment surgeries for its inmates.

But the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the Indiana Department of Corrections on Cordellionè’s behalf, arguing the state law violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment”.

Taxpayers should fund trans surgery for inmate who murdered baby, judge rules (msn.com)

Edited September 29 by pellinore

[+and-then]

36 minutes ago, pellinore said:

the “only remedy” to treat “persistent gender dysphoria”.

I can think of another in this case.  This person took a life intentionally, execute this person.  

[pellinore]

Maybe she

2 hours ago, and-then said:

I can think of another in this case.  This person took a life intentionally, execute this person.  

Maybe she has had a complete change of heart. She looks like the typical mom next door.

[MrAnderson]

3 hours ago, pellinore said:

Taxpayers must fund sex reassignment surgery for an inmate who murdered an 11-month-old baby, a judge in Indiana has ruled.

Born Jonathan C Richardson, the inmate now known as Autumn Cordellionè is serving a 55-year prison sentence after being convicted of murder by strangulation in 2001. The victim was Cordellionè’s stepdaughter.

The inmate has sought sex reassignment surgery, including an orchiectomy and vaginoplasty, arguing it is the “only remedy” to treat “persistent gender dysphoria”.

The state of Indiana prohibits its prison service from funding gender reassignment surgeries for its inmates.

But the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the Indiana Department of Corrections on Cordellionè’s behalf, arguing the state law violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment”.

Taxpayers should fund trans surgery for inmate who murdered baby, judge rules (msn.com)

If this piece of news is accurate then they are not doing great at the State of Indiana.

 

[+OverSword]

How could any judge have ruled this way??? 

[simplybill]

A lot of violent behavior in males is fueled by testosterone. I would think the prison officials would jump on the chance to turn a violent killer into a happy eunuch.  

[+Link of Hyrule]

Wasn't I arguing just a few days ago in another thread about this and the left leaning member said that this kind of thing simply wouldn't happen as you need a "pre-existing condition"? Has this prisoner been suffering gender dysphoria since he murdered that baby? Was their dysphoria the reason for the murder? Have they been receiving treatment for the last 23 years since the murder?

If not, then why waste taxpayer money on it now?

 

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

How could any judge have ruled this way??? 

Dude, libertarianism.

ACLU has helped Nazis, the KKK and Westboro in court. Because libertarianism.

I strongly suspect that you support many other cases that they have helped.

 

https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/the-aclu-loses-its-way

Founded in January 1920, the ACLU sought to become, in its own words, “the nation’s premier defender of the rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.” Over the decades, the organization fought for civil liberties even when no one else would.

[psyche101]

3 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Wasn't I arguing just a few days ago in another thread about this and the left leaning member said that this kind of thing simply wouldn't happen as you need a "pre-existing condition"? Has this prisoner been suffering gender dysphoria since he murdered that baby? Was their dysphoria the reason for the murder? Have they been receiving treatment for the last 23 years since the murder?

If not, then why waste taxpayer money on it now?

 

Yes me. 

This has nothing to do with that law. And the court case is issued, not settled.

These are the same libertarians that fight to give Nazis free speech. See my link above. They are seeking adherence to the constitution. The laws they are using in defence are from the constitution.

This is why libertarians cause a lot of damage upholding their ideology. 

This is more your doing than the left or anyone. This is the side of libertarian values I have been outlining as bad for a long time. It's about free speech. 

I suggest you familiarise yourself with ACLU better.

[psyche101]

4 hours ago, pellinore said:

Maybe she

Maybe she has had a complete change of heart. She looks like the typical mom next door.

Mate. Western suburbs. She probably wouldn't even stand out in some communities. She's just missing a pack of smokes in her sleeve. 

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, OverSword said:

How could any judge have ruled this way??? 

I think too many of our judges are political animals now.  They pose an extreme risk to our nation because once their actions become widespread enough and enough citizens realize there is no longer any justice to be expected, they will begin to resort to vigilantism.

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, simplybill said:

A lot of violent behavior in males is fueled by testosterone. I would think the prison officials would jump on the chance to turn a violent killer into a happy eunuch.  

Agreed... but there is a LOT less expensive means to do that.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Agent0range said:

a different political stance

No problem.  If you support the law, feel free to cut this person a check.  Problem solved.  You were speaking of losers?  Would that definition fit a child-murderer in your world?

[+Link of Hyrule]

33 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Yes me. 

This has nothing to do with that law. And the court case is issued, not settled.

These are the same libertarians that fight to give Nazis free speech. See my link above. They are seeking adherence to the constitution. The laws they are using in defence are from the constitution.

This is why libertarians cause a lot of damage upholding their ideology. 

This is more your doing than the left or anyone. This is the side of libertarian values I have been outlining as bad for a long time. It's about free speech. 

I suggest you familiarise yourself with ACLU better.

Free speech doesn't cost the taxpayers. Comparing this to free speech is ridiculous! But it does prove that you don't need a "pre-existing condition", you just need to have been diagnosed. 

Edited September 30 by Link of Hyrule

[+Razman]

Typical soccer mom.

[psyche101]

26 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

Free speech doesn't cost the taxpayers. Comparing this to free speech is ridiculous! But it does prove that you don't need a "pre-existing condition", you just need to have been diagnosed. 

That's not what this case is about. 

It's about constitutional rights. 

That's what the ACLU exists for. 

The law you are referring to is a red herring. It doesn't apply here.

Go libertarians LoL. Not 

Edited September 30 by psyche101

[acidhead]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Dude, libertarianism.

ACLU has helped Nazis, the KKK and Westboro in court. Because libertarianism.

I strongly suspect that you support many other cases that they have helped.

 

https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/the-aclu-loses-its-way

Founded in January 1920, the ACLU sought to become, in its own words, “the nation’s premier defender of the rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.” Over the decades, the organization fought for civil liberties even when no one else would.

That's not entirely accurate. In this particular topic of the thread, the ACLU has taken a Progressive position. 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is often characterized as progressive, but its views align more closely with libertarianism in certain areas:

*Libertarian Alignments:*

1. Free speech and expression
2. Opposition to government overreach and surveillance
3. Support for individual rights and autonomy
4. Advocacy for criminal justice reform and reducing government power
5. Defense of property rights and economic liberties

*Progressive Alignments:*

1. Support for reproductive rights and women's equality
2. Advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights and equality
3. Racial justice and equality initiatives
4. Immigration rights and reform
5. Environmental and social justice concerns

*Key Differences:*

1. Economic policy: Libertarians tend to oppose government intervention, while progressives support regulation and social welfare programs.
2. Social issues: Libertarians may prioritize individual freedom over social justice concerns.

*ACLU's Stance:*

The ACLU's mission focuses on defending civil liberties and individual rights, often intersecting with libertarian and progressive values. However, the organization's commitment to constitutional principles and individual freedoms drives its advocacy, rather than adherence to a specific ideology.

*Notable ACLU-Libertarian Collaborations:*

1. Joint advocacy for NSA surveillance reform
2. Cooperation on criminal justice reform
3. Shared concerns about police militarization

*Criticisms and Controversies:*

Some critics accuse the ACLU of:

1. Overemphasizing individual rights over national security
2. Failing to address economic inequalities
3. Taking progressive stances on social issues

In conclusion, the ACLU's views align with libertarianism on certain issues, particularly individual rights and government overreach, but also share progressive values on social justice and equality. The organization's commitment to civil liberties and constitutional principles guides its advocacy.

[+Link of Hyrule]

34 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That's not what this case is about. 

It's about constitutional rights. 

That's what the ACLU exists for. 

The law you are referring to is a red herring. It doesn't apply here.

Go libertarians LoL. Not 

I think it was referring to a policy that Kamala Harris once championed back when she was running for president in 2020. Seems like you're trying to say it's ok now because the law has always allowed for trans people to get operations (or at least that's what your hoping this case will determine). 

[psyche101]

23 minutes ago, acidhead said:

That's not entirely accurate. In this particular topic of the thread, the ACLU has taken a Progressive position. 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is often characterized as progressive, but its views align more closely with libertarianism in certain areas:

*Libertarian Alignments:*

1. Free speech and expression
2. Opposition to government overreach and surveillance
3. Support for individual rights and autonomy
4. Advocacy for criminal justice reform and reducing government power
5. Defense of property rights and economic liberties

*Progressive Alignments:*

1. Support for reproductive rights and women's equality
2. Advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights and equality
3. Racial justice and equality initiatives
4. Immigration rights and reform
5. Environmental and social justice concerns

*Key Differences:*

1. Economic policy: Libertarians tend to oppose government intervention, while progressives support regulation and social welfare programs.
2. Social issues: Libertarians may prioritize individual freedom over social justice concerns.

*ACLU's Stance:*

The ACLU's mission focuses on defending civil liberties and individual rights, often intersecting with libertarian and progressive values. However, the organization's commitment to constitutional principles and individual freedoms drives its advocacy, rather than adherence to a specific ideology.

*Notable ACLU-Libertarian Collaborations:*

1. Joint advocacy for NSA surveillance reform
2. Cooperation on criminal justice reform
3. Shared concerns about police militarization

*Criticisms and Controversies:*

Some critics accuse the ACLU of:

1. Overemphasizing individual rights over national security
2. Failing to address economic inequalities
3. Taking progressive stances on social issues

In conclusion, the ACLU's views align with libertarianism on certain issues, particularly individual rights and government overreach, but also share progressive values on social justice and equality. The organization's commitment to civil liberties and constitutional principles guides its advocacy.

 

 

 

This case was fought as a violation of the constitution. 

The ACLU contends that the new law is a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of 'cruel and unusual punishment'

[psyche101]

1 minute ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I think it was referring to a policy that Kamala Harris once championed back when she was running for president in 2020. Seems like you're trying to say it's ok now because the law has always allowed for trans people to get operations (or at least that's what your hoping this case will determine). 

No it wasn't. See above post. It's a violation of the eighth amendment. That's how they saw it anyway. 

BTW. I read it actually was a pre existing condition. This person has identified as female since age six apparently. 

[+Link of Hyrule]

9 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

No it wasn't. See above post. It's a violation of the eighth amendment. That's how they saw it anyway. 

BTW. I read it actually was a pre existing condition. This person has identified as female since age six apparently. 

She CLAIMS to have identified as a female since age 6. She was only diagnosed in 2020. If she murdered the baby in 2001.... ok, I just checked, this individual was CONVICTED in 2001 and sentenced in 2002. I'm not 100% certain when the crime actually took place. The point is that he has been a prisoner for 22 years now, and it took 18 years for anyone in the prison system to diagnose them with gender dysphoria. And that is basically what I said would happen in that other thread - people would start to identify as another gender then demand surgery on the taxpayer dime, and you argued that it wouldn't happen unless there was a pre-existing condition. 

[psyche101]

58 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

She CLAIMS to have identified as a female since age 6. She was only diagnosed in 2020. If she murdered the baby in 2001.... ok, I just checked, this individual was CONVICTED in 2001 and sentenced in 2002. I'm not 100% certain when the crime actually took place. The point is that he has been a prisoner for 22 years now, and it took 18 years for anyone in the prison system to diagnose them with gender dysphoria. And that is basically what I said would happen in that other thread - people would start to identify as another gender then demand surgery on the taxpayer dime, and you argued that it wouldn't happen unless there was a pre-existing condition. 

Her lawsuit stated she had identified since she six. Beginning treatment has no bearing on that. You understand perjury and all that don't you? 

The lawsuit, first brought in 2023, said Cordellionè has identified as a woman since the age of six but was only diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2020 and has been prescribed female hormones and testosterone blockers.

The history also says she sued the prison a year earlier over not being allowed to wear a hijab after identifying as a Muslim woman and apparently has a history of self harm by attempts at self castration. I don't think the pre existing condition is hard to establish here. Or poor mental health.

Maybe check the system laws too. The law you are referring to doesn't apply in the state of Indiana. It's in the OP link.

The state of Indiana prohibits its prison service from funding gender reassignment surgeries for its inmates.

But the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the Indiana Department of Corrections on Cordellionè’s behalf, arguing the state law violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment”.

 

So your wild assumptions are all wildly wrong. 

I don't agree with the ruling and support the appeal. But you know me, I don't believe any scum like Nazis, murderers, rapists, molesters or racists should get free speech laws or the benefits of society like everyone. When a person or group is specifically anti society and anti peace by nature, they forfeit the right I feel to the benefits a society affords. I'd offer murderers no rights, just turn a blind eye and let them suffer the rest of their lives in a dark hole with stale bread and dirty water. But that wouldn't be very libertarian now would it. 

But I often say there's usually more bad than good in fundamental libertarian values. These are the sort of people in general who tend to benefit from modern libertarians.

Edited September 30 by psyche101

[+OverSword]

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Dude, libertarianism.

ACLU has helped Nazis, the KKK and Westboro in court. Because libertarianism.

I strongly suspect that you support many other cases that they have helped.

 

https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/the-aclu-loses-its-way

Founded in January 1920, the ACLU sought to become, in its own words, “the nation’s premier defender of the rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.” Over the decades, the organization fought for civil liberties even when no one else would.

As a matter of fact I have supported cases taken up by the ACLU but usually that is not the case and probably not for the most other right of center people in the USA.  Regardless it is not the ACLU that I initially have issue with here it's the judges ruling.  I would like see the laws or precedents behind the reason for this ruling.  

[+OverSword]

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

These are the same libertarians that fight to give Nazis free speech.

Everyone has the right to free speech, even you and nazi's.

[+OverSword]

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Mate. Western suburbs. She probably wouldn't even stand out in some communities. She's just missing a pack of smokes in her sleeve. 

You mean he. And anyone with those stupid facial tattoos is going to stand out anywhere in this country.