California taxpayers fund $4 million for gender-affirming procedures, including fake breasts, laser hair removal, and facial feminization, for prisoners, including four on death row.

California Taxpayers Foot ⁢the Bill for Inmate Gender-Affirming ⁢Surgeries

Since 2017, California has spent over $4 million ‍of taxpayer money on surgical sex changes and cosmetic “gender-affirming” enhancements for 157 inmates, including 4 on death row, according​ to records obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The state has allocated nearly $2.5 million for vaginoplasties and hundreds of thousands of dollars for fake breasts, laser hair ⁢removal, and facial feminization since becoming the⁤ first state to fund prisoners’ sex-change operations. The California corrections department has not imposed any restrictions on the types of ⁤procedures trans-identifying prisoners can request, resulting in nearly ⁤1,000 ⁤petitions for⁣ “gender-affirming” surgeries.

This lack of oversight for trans-identifying prisoners sharply contrasts with the‌ laser hair removal, and facial feminization, for prisoners, including four on death row.”>strict rules ‍governing inmate‌ dental care, which⁣ prohibit certain services like root ‍canals on back teeth or cosmetic tooth restoration. Attorney⁣ Harmeet Dhillon, who has represented California inmates in need of essential medical care, argues that taxpayer‌ dollars should not be used for experimental and ‌scientifically ‌unjustified surgeries.

From 2017 ⁢to mid-July 2023, taxpayers⁢ have funded at least 157 transgender⁣ procedures, including vaginoplasties for 35 ⁤male prisoners, breast implants⁣ for 11 male inmates, facial feminization surgeries for 2 individuals, and laser hair removal for 69 males. Additionally, 40 female prisoners‍ have undergone breast removal surgeries.

Surprisingly, even‌ individuals on death row have received sex-reassignment surgery, as revealed by records obtained by the Free Beacon. The ⁤corrections agency evaluates inmates’ requests for transgender procedures on a case-by-case basis.

Furthermore, the cost of transgender‌ care for inmates is increasing. This ⁣year, corrections agency ‍officials ⁤requested nearly $2.2 million in additional funds solely for transgender care, which includes hiring more medical professionals.

The mandate to cover inmates’ ‍sex-change procedures originated from a 2016 legal ‍settlement with Shiloh Quine, a convicted male murderer with gender dysphoria. Represented by the George Soros-funded Transgender Law ⁣Center, Quine secured the right for trans-identifying prisoners to possess items typically prohibited for male inmates‌ due to security concerns.

In ‌2014, only 131 California inmates identified as transgender. As of the⁢ latest count, ⁢that number has risen to 1,847, including hundreds who identify as nonbinary. The corrections agency attributes this growth to their efforts in transferring inmates based on their chosen “gender identity.”

Are ​gender-affirming surgeries ‌in prisons a proper use of taxpayer funds?

Affirming” surgeries.

This controversial use of ⁤taxpayer funds has sparked backlash from conservatives and fiscal watchdogs who argue that the state’s priorities are misplaced. They contend that taxpayer money should be used to address more pressing issues such as improving education, healthcare, and infrastructure.

Proponents of the program ⁣argue that providing gender-affirming​ surgeries ‌to inmates is a necessary step towards ensuring their constitutional right to adequate healthcare. They argue that denying ⁢these​ surgeries would⁤ violate ⁣the inmates’ rights and could lead to further medical complications and mental distress.

However, critics question whether these surgeries should be considered medically necessary. ‍They ‌argue⁣ that ‍gender dysphoria, the condition ⁣commonly associated ‌with ⁤transgender individuals, is​ a mental health issue, not a⁤ physical one. Therefore, they⁢ argue, using taxpayer funds for⁢ these elective surgeries is not justified.

Another concern ⁢raised by critics is whether the funding for ‌these surgeries⁢ could lead to a potential abuse ​of the system. They ‍argue that inmates may falsely claim to identify ⁣as transgender in order to receive​ costly ‍procedures that they would otherwise not be able to afford.

Furthermore, opponents argue that the state‌ should prioritize funding for other healthcare needs of all inmates, irrespective of gender identity. Many inmates have significant medical issues⁣ that require​ attention, and limited ⁢resources should be allocated in a⁢ way that serves the general prison population,‍ rather than a small percentage of transgender inmates.

California is the first and only state to provide taxpayer-funded gender-affirming surgeries to inmates. This policy sets a precedent for other states⁤ to consider ‌implementing similar programs. However, there is a need for⁣ a broader discussion on the use of taxpayer funds for elective surgeries, especially in the context of incarcerated individuals.

As this issue continues to be debated, it‍ is⁤ important for‌ policymakers to consider​ the‍ broader implications of funding ‍gender-affirming surgeries for inmates. While there may be valid arguments for providing these surgeries, the use of taxpayer money should always prioritize the general welfare of ⁣the‌ population as a whole.

Ultimately, the decision on whether to ‍continue funding gender-affirming surgeries for inmates rests with the California government. It is essential that this decision is made after careful consideration of both the constitutional rights of inmates and⁤ the responsible allocation of taxpayer funds.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases