California spent $4M of taxpayer money on gender surgeries for prisoners, says report.

California Taxpayers​ Fund Gender Surgeries for Prisoners

California taxpayers are bankrolling ‍gender surgeries for prisoners, with the state spending over $4 million on life-altering procedures for 157 inmates since 2017, according to records reported on by The Washington Free Beacon.

In 2017, California became the first state to pay for prisoners ‌to ‌go under the knife if they wanted to present as‌ the opposite sex. Since then, California ⁢has spent $2.5 million on vaginoplasties and‍ hundreds of thousands of dollars ‍on other transgender procedures, such as fake breasts, laser⁢ hair removal, and facial feminization,‌ the Free ⁣Beacon reported.

Four of the prisoners benefiting from the millions in taxpayer dollars⁤ were convicted of crimes that placed them on death row. Prosecutors in the state can still seek the death penalty, but no one has been put to death in‍ California for 17 years, and California ‌Governor Gavin Newsom placed ‌a moratorium on the death penalty in 2019.

“People who think they’re transgender have rights, and they should be⁤ treated with dignity and respect, but it does not include taxpayer dollars being used to ⁤do surgeries that are experimental at⁣ best and scientifically unjustified at worst,”⁢ attorney ⁤Harmeet Dhillon, who has represented California inmates, told​ the Free Beacon.

According to ⁤the records reviewed by the Free Beacon, California paid for 35 male prisoners to get ‍artificial vaginas ‍and vulvas, which cost taxpayers $2.5 million, and 11 male prisoners received breast implants which cost more than $180,000. Meanwhile, 40 female⁣ inmates had their breasts removed ‍courtesy of the state ⁣government for a total of more than⁣ $1 million.

The⁤ state corrections department said it approves gender surgeries for inmates on a case-by-case basis but it does not place any limits on the type of surgery an inmate can get. As of the early summer of 2023, the department had⁣ received over 1,000 requests for “gender-affirming” surgeries since 2017, according ​to agency records.

The requests for gender surgery more than doubled in California prisons in 2022, and ⁣since 2017, the number ⁢of trans-identifying‍ prisoners⁣ increased by ​234%, Cal Matters reported. Earlier this year, a male triple murderer was transferred ‍ to a women’s prison after identifying as female.

Men‌ getting into women’s⁣ prisons under the guise of identifying as transgender has⁢ caused issues for California in the past. In 2021, a women’s ‌rights group filed a lawsuit in the U.S.​ District Court for the Eastern District of California after multiple imprisoned women⁢ said they were sexually assaulted by male inmates who identified as ​transgender or “nonbinary,” The Sacramento Bee reported.

California isn’t the only state⁢ using taxpayer dollars to pay for gender surgeries. Both Pennsylvania and Massachusetts have spent millions of dollars for the life-altering procedures on children between 2015 and the spring of this ⁣year.

How have other states approached the question of funding gender surgeries for ⁣prisoners, and what factors have influenced their⁢ decisions

T provides gender-affirming surgeries for prisoners in order to comply with federal mandates and court orders. These surgeries are considered medically ⁤necessary treatments for individuals with gender dysphoria,⁤ a condition where a person’s gender identity does not align ⁢with their assigned sex at birth.

The decision to fund gender surgeries for prisoners has sparked a debate regarding the appropriate‌ use ⁤of taxpayer dollars. Critics argue that these procedures are elective​ and ‌should not be funded by the state. They believe that taxpayer money​ should‍ be allocated‌ to more essential needs such as education, ‍healthcare, and infrastructure.

One of the main concerns raised by​ opponents is the cost associated with these surgeries. The Free Beacon reported that California ⁤taxpayers have spent⁣ over $4 million on gender-affirming procedures for prisoners since 2017. The high cost of these‌ procedures, especially ⁣when coupled with the state’s economic challenges and significant budget deficits, has fueled public discontent.

Another point ​of contention revolves ‍around ‍the eligibility of prisoners for such surgeries. ⁢Critics argue ⁣that individuals convicted of serious crimes, including those on death row, should not have access to these procedures. They‌ contend that taxpayer dollars‍ should not be used to provide luxurious enhancements for individuals who have committed heinous acts.

Supporters of the state-funded surgeries emphasize the importance of ⁢providing adequate medical care for transgender prisoners. They argue that denying these treatments can lead to mental health issues, decreased quality of life, and increased ⁢healthcare costs in the long run.

Moreover, they suggest that denying gender surgeries to prisoners violates their constitutional rights. They believe that all individuals, including prisoners, have the right ‍to access medically necessary care, regardless of their legal status.

California is ​not the only state ⁢facing the⁢ question of whether to fund gender surgeries for prisoners. Several other states have also grappled with this issue, and ‌their approaches have‌ varied. In⁢ some cases, courts have mandated the⁢ provision of gender-affirming treatments for prisoners, citing violations of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel ⁢and unusual punishment.

The debate over taxpayer funding for gender surgeries in California’s prisons raises ⁢complex legal, ethical, and fiscal considerations. As the discussion continues, it is crucial to ‌strike a balance between respecting⁣ the rights of transgender individuals and responsibly allocating taxpayer dollars. Ultimately, the resolution may come down to the courts or legislative action to ⁢establish clear guidelines on the eligibility and funding ⁣of‌ gender-affirming surgeries for ‌prisoners.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases