Posted on 01/19/2014 5:04:37 PM PST by Salman
A federal appeals court has upheld a trial ruling that requires taxpayers to pay for a murderer’s sex change. From the FNN story:
A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a judge’s ruling granting a taxpayer-funded sex change operation for a transgender inmate serving a life sentence for a murder conviction, saying receiving medically necessary treatment is a constitutional right that must be protected “even if that treatment strikes some as odd or unorthodox.”This probably means that Bradley Manning will eventually win his claim that becoming Chelsea Manning is a civil right.
People who predicted that Obamacare and health insurance would soon be paying for sex change surgeries were once laughed at. But if sex change surgery is medically necessary–rather than elective–under the law, I don’t see how Obamacare won’t cover it.
Meanwhile, in California, a new law essentially states that every gay person in the state is entitled to group health insurance coverage for fertility treatments if they want a baby. They may be biologically fertile, but are considered infertile because they don’t want heterosexual intercourse.
Straights, in contrast, have to demonstrate actual infertility to be entitled to mandatory group health insurance coverage for infertility.
Our medical priorities are shifting from being concerned foremost with saving or extending life, to facilitating fulfilling lives as determined by the patient’s internal narrative.
In the UK, for example, a 42-year-old woman is entitled to free IVF on the NHS despite inability to conceive at that age often having to do with natural body rhythms. At the same time, some terminal cancer patients are denied chemotherapy that can extend life for months, meaning they die earlier than they otherwise would.
That kind of thing is coming here, too. Heck, it’s here already!
So are they then going to sue to change prisons to the one for their new sex. This is going to get more and more bizarre.
But Joni Mitchell's gonna pursue ya
.. and sue ya.
toes arent covered.....
just about everything else...yes...toes no!
I FEEL that its medically necessary that I be GRANTED a New Maserati.....
Yes I did. Thank you.
I write parodies. A lot of them. That's why I am . . . The wag tailoring the doggerel
yes, putting teats on a boar would be more “medically necessary” or useful ...than this
You are 62 years old, have worked, raised a family, and paid taxes all of your life. You need hip replacement surgery? Hmmm, I see here in your owebamacare social history that you don’t vote for democrats and used to own a gun before the Second Amendment was repealed. The panel rules that your hip replacement is not medically necessary. Get back to work, serf. NEXT...
If I understood the article correctly, the federal judge has ordered the Massachussetts Department of Correction to pay for the sex-change operation, corrections welcome. And if this is correct, and only Massachussetts taxpayers are paying for the operation, then this operation is constitutional, but not for the reason that the misguided activist federal judge is claiming.
More specifically, the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify in general that the Constitution's silence about things like public healthcare means that such issues are automatically uniquely state power issues. So if only Massachussetts taxpayers are paying for this operation then that is their issue, although I personally disagree with such spending.
And if Massachussetts majority voters feel the same way I do about such spending, but don't exercise their voting muscle to force their state lawmakers to put a stop to such spending, then lazy Massachusetts voters can sleep in the bed that they have made for themselves.
On the other hand, if federal taxpayer dollars are involved in this operation, then such funds are unconstitutional. This is evidenced by the fact that, regardless what activist justices want everybody to think about the constitutonality of Obamacare, such justices don't want voters to find out that the Supreme Court had previously officially clarified the following. Not only have the states had never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate public healthcare, federal public healthcare programs like Obamacare therefore unconstitutional, but Congress is prohibited from taxing and spending in the name of anything that it doesn't have the constitutional authority to address.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. (emphases added)” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
OWW-W-W-W-W!!
Have a butcher perform the Lopadikovahim!
“I think spending the rest of my life with a 25 year old nymphonmaniac is medically necessary.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Apparently you think an early death with a smile on your face is also necessary.
The stupidity that is liberalism continues to be shown for all to see. This is a stupid ruling with no legal foundation. Flat out stupid.
I think the population controllers are OK with artificial reproduction technology because it further undermines natural family attachments. The man isn't mating with a woman, so there's no complementary sexual bond. The inseminated woman does not have an attachment to a man. The "surrogate" mother (which is a misnomer, because she is the birth mother) has contracted to relinquish the gestational bond. The sperm donor (another misnomer: he's a sperm-vendor) hasn't bonded to anything but a fistful of money.
Such people may reproduce once, as a rule, for a child as a lifestyle accessory. But rarely will they have real, child-rich families.
Other than "Octo-mom," you won't find artificial-reproducers going for two, three or more in a whole lifetime.
And yet if my mother breaks a hip that will NOT be considered ‘medically necessary’ to fix.
Gotcha.
I like the 1850’s even better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.