SEX REASSIGNMENT

[guohua]

OK, if you think you're a Girl after you've been a Boy all your Life, OK. You have a problem and you should either live with it or get health insurance and pay for your transformation.'

But in California ( the state of lonnie's) the taxpayers are going to pay for an inmate On DEATH ROW to have a Sex Change!!  
How Ignorant Is That,,,,, Ok,,,, Ok,,,, Ok, How Liberally - Progressively STUPID Is That! 

APNEWSBREAK: CALIFORNIA FUNDS 1ST US INMATE SEX REASSIGNMENT

YES, That's The REAL Headlines!

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- A 57-year-old convicted killer serving a life sentence in California became the first U.S. inmate to receive state-funded sex-reassignment surgery, the prisoner's attorneys confirmed Friday to The Associated Press.

California prison officials agreed in August 2015 to pay for the surgery for Shiloh Heavenly Quine, who was convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping and robbery for ransom and has no possibility of parole.

YES!!!!! First Degree Murder, No Possibility of Parole and He Deserves A Sex Change????? REALLY California? Who's he going to Change For????

Quine's case led the state to become the first to set standards that will allow other transgender inmates to apply to receive state-funded sex-reassignment surgery.
It also prompted a federal magistrate to require California to provide transgender female inmates housed in men's facilities with more female-oriented items such as nightgowns, scarves and necklaces.
"For too long, institutions have ignored doctors and casually dismissed medically necessary and life-saving care for transgender people just because of who we are," said Kris Hayashi, executive director of the Transgender Law Center, which represents Quine and other transgender inmates.
Completion of the surgery not only fulfills a landmark legal settlement but marks a victory "for all transgender people who have ever been denied the medical care we need," Hayashi said.
Quine will be moved to a women's prison after the operation, which was performed at a hospital in San Francisco, her attorneys said.

 The California taxpayer is going to spend Thousands Of dollars on The MURDERER and then they are going to move him to a Female Prison!!! 
OK, now how many more are you going to pay for?

"The Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution requires that prisons provide inmates with medically necessary treatment for medical and mental health conditions including inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria," Thornton said in a written statement.

Source

Where does it say that in the Eighth Amendment?

THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT
By Bryan A. Stevenson and John F. Stinneford

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” This amendment prohibits the federal government from imposing unduly harsh penalties on criminal defendants, either as the price for obtaining pretrial release or as punishment for crime after conviction.

The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause is the most important and controversial part of the Eighth Amendment.  In some ways, the Clause is shrouded in mystery. What does it mean for a punishment to be “cruel and unusual”? How do we measure a punishment’s cruelty? And if a punishment is cruel, why should we care whether it is “unusual”?

We do know some things about the history of the phrase “cruel and unusual punishments.” In 1689 – a full century before the ratification of the United States Constitution – England adopted a Bill of Rights that prohibited “cruell and unusuall punishments.” In 1776, George Mason included a prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments in the Declaration of Rights he drafted for the Commonwealth of Virginia. In 1791, this same prohibition became the central component of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
When the United States Constitution was first ratified by the states, it did not contain a Bill of Rights, and it did not prohibit cruel and unusual punishments. These protections were not added until after the Constitution was ratified. The debates that occurred while the states were deciding whether to ratify the Constitution shed some light on the meaning of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, because they show why many people thought this Clause was needed.

The proposed Constitution made the federal government much more powerful than it had been under the Articles of Confederation. One of the most significant of these new powers was the power to create federal crimes and to punish those who committed them. Opponents of the Constitution feared that this new power would allow Congress to use cruel punishments as a tool for oppressing the people. For example, Abraham Holmes argued that Congress might repeat the abuses of “that diabolical institution, the Inquisition,” and start imposing torture on those convicted of federal crimes: “They are nowhere restrained from inventing the most cruel and unheard-of punishments, and annexing them to crimes; and there is no constitutional check on them, but that racks and gibbets may be amongst the most mild instruments of their discipline.” Patrick Henry asserted, even more pointedly than Holmes, that the lack of a prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments meant that Congress could use punishment as a tool of oppression: “Congress . . . . may introduce the practice of France, Spain, and Germany of torturing, to extort a confession of the crime.
They . . . will tell you that there is such a necessity of strengthening the arm of government, that they must . . . extort confession by torture, in order to punish with still more relentless severity. We are then lost and undone.” Largely as a result of these objections, the Constitution was amended to prohibit cruel and unusual punishments.

As these debates demonstrate, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause clearly prohibits “barbaric” methods of punishment. If the federal government tried to bring back the rack, or thumbscrews, or gibbets as instruments of punishment, such efforts would pretty clearly violate the Eighth Amendment.

Most people also agree that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause now limits state power as well as federal power, because the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from abridging “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” and from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

But once we get beyond these areas of agreement, there are many areas of passionate disagreement concerning the meaning and application of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause:
First and foremost, what standard should the Court use in deciding whether a punishment is unconstitutionally cruel?  Should it look to the standards of 1791, when the Eighth Amendment was adopted? Should it look to contemporary public opinion?  Should it exercise its own moral judgment, irrespective of whether it is supported by societal consensus? Should it look to some other standard?

Second, does the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause only prohibit barbaric methods of punishment, or does it also prohibit punishments that are disproportionate to the offense?

For example, would it violate the Eighth Amendment to impose a life sentence for a parking violation?
Third, does the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause prohibit the death penalty? Many argue that capital punishment fails to advance any public good, that it is of a past era, and it should be eliminated. Proponents of the death penalty argue that some people have committed such atrocious crimes that they deserve death, and that the death penalty may deter others from committing atrocious crimes.
They also point out that the punishment is authorized in a majority of states, and public opinion polls continue to show broad support for it.
Finally, are some modern methods of punishment – such as the extended use of solitary confinement, or the use of a three-drug “cocktail” to execute offenders – sufficiently “barbaric” to violate the Eighth Amendment?

Link

[gordi]

@guohua I actually think that they SHOULD provide gender-reassignment for convicted murderers and/or rapists.

But, they should do so with an old rusty spoon, a wire brush and some industrial disinfectant. (Whether they requested the "re-assignment" or not!)

 
G

[BIAD]

@guohua I actually think that they SHOULD provide gender-reassignment for convicted murderers and/or rapists.

But, they should do so with an old rusty spoon, a wire brush and some industrial disinfectant. (Whether they requested the "re-assignment" or not!)

 
G

Yeah... there was some stuff we used at work a long time ago that was dark-brown and the
plastic bottle proclaimed it was 96% sulphuric acid! It was great for shifting urea cake from
urinals.
(As you can see, there was a pride in my work!)

From what I've gathered, this gender-confusion is a mental disorder and with all respect to
those suffering with it, you are who you were when you were born.

The majority of those who say they've been 'assigned' the wrong gender rarely go through
with the full transformation and personally, I think it's connected to attention-seeking needs.

The psychological problems are deeper though and I can understand the wariness of some to
not confront it.

This prison demand is nothing more than shysters abusing the system by using weasel-words
and the only real benefit is that it chemically castrates the murdering bastard.
Lawyers will make money anywhere.

[Daitengu]

Meh .... give em a life reassignment ..... send em on to next world .....

[guohua]

@guohua I actually think that they SHOULD provide gender-reassignment for convicted murderers and/or rapists.

But, they should do so with an old rusty spoon, a wire brush and some industrial disinfectant. (Whether they requested the "re-assignment" or not!)

 
G

I have a Sharp Knife and a Pair Of Wire Cutters! 

 I'll do it for FREE!

[Mystic Wanderer]

This guy could be really clever and he is playing the system.

I mean, if he is being harassed by the male inmates, he could claim he needs a sex change operation and end up in a female prison where he could defend himself a bit easier, and when the inmates have sex... well, that could be really enjoyable for him. 

AND THE STUPID GOVERNMENT/TAX PAYERS PAID FOR EVERYTHING!  

[guohua]

This guy could be really clever and he is playing the system.

I mean, if he is being harassed by the male inmates, he could claim he needs a sex change operation and end up in a female prison where he could defend himself a bit easier, and when the inmates have sex... well, that could be really enjoyable for him. 

AND THE STUPID GOVERNMENT/TAX PAYERS PAID FOR EVERYTHING!  

You know,,,, My Husband Said All Real Men Are Lisbians! 

[DuckforcoveR]

@guohua I actually think that they SHOULD provide gender-reassignment for convicted murderers and/or rapists.

But, they should do so with an old rusty spoon, a wire brush and some industrial disinfectant. (Whether they requested the "re-assignment" or not!)

 
G

YES!!