Implications of the Kosilek case for veterans

[Guest CindyLouCovington]

This issue will inevitably be ultimately decided by the US Supreme Court.Even if Massachusetts decides not to appeal, this will spawn a flood of lawsuits by convicts in all parts of the country, and some state (certainly a Southern state if no one else) will appeal this all the way up. If it is upheld,it will be impossible to deny the same thing to EVERYONE who is entitled to free medical care from government.After all,states are only required to provide NECESSARY medical procedures free to convicts, and VETERANS, for example, are equally entitled to have all NECESSARY medical procedures provided free at government expense. If SRS is necessary for trans convicts, it is equally necessary for trans veterans,and you can't provide it for the one and not the other;the government would have no legal grounds for avoiding it. Necessary is necessary.It will probably take more lawsuits,but trans veterans must prevail in the end.

[MaryEllen]

It was on the news this evening. Mass is filing an appeal against the judges ruling.

MaryEllen

[Guest Jenni_S]

And I still find it disturbing that people are piggybacking on THIS person to get what is necessary. But hey, the ends justify the means if I get mine, am I right?

Or is it not abhorrent that it's coming down to basically saying "Hey, thanks, Ms. Kosilek, for murdering your wife and suing the Massachusetts prison system! Now I can get what I need too!" Did this woman need to die so you can get government funded SRS? Is that just an inconvenient fact that's just swept under the rug, because there's an easy way now?

Am I being too rough here? Perhaps, but I'm thinking of two things here. One is that, yes, I find the whole idea appalling. Two, how is that going to look to the public at large? Do you really want to use a convicted murderer to make your case? Is that really the best way to show, to people you want to convince that you have a just cause, that we're "just like everyone else?" I really can't see an upside to having this case be a model for anything. How many other ways are there to make your point that DON'T involve a murderer?

[Guest KimberlyF]

Can't wait till this is no longer news. I still hear people lumping us together with Buffalo Bill.

[Ravin]

It is not the ideal fact pattern to send up as a test case, but sometimes you take what you can get. I'd much rather see the issue tested on a veteran's case.

[Guest Jenni_S]

It is not the ideal fact pattern to send up as a test case, but sometimes you take what you can get. I'd much rather see the issue tested on a veteran's case.

"You take what you can get." This is Cheryl Kosilek. This is who had to die so you can take what you can get. i hope that everyone that supports this as a test case sees her face, remembers her name, and is haunted by the fact that she died to give you this opportunity.

[Guest KimberlyF]

Society repeatedly asks members of other groups to denounce terrible acts. This act is seen as a victory for the Trans movement in the media. So many Catholic Church members have to say how repulsed they are by the actions of a few priests. The Military distances itself from the soldiers at Abu Gharib. Muslims have to denounce terrorism over and over.

But this murder works for us, cause we may get something out of it.

This will do wonders for our cause. I know many stick their heads in the sand and don't read the comments after articles because they're hurtful. To those people, don't read what people are saying about this on the net.

[Ravin]

I think there's a faulty causation chain going on here. The murder was undeniably tragic. The murderer was convicted and sentenced justly.no one has questioned that.

At issue is how confined felons are treated. Regardless of the crime, certain standards must be upheld to ensure the Constitutional protection against cruel an unusual punishment. No one is saying let her go. The issue is whether she deserves the same humane treatment given to all other convicted felons afforded necessary medical care. Convicted murderers still get necessary health care.

What constitutes necessary health care in prison is the issue, not how anyone landed there. So, what do you think? Palliative care only? Or even that?

[Guest Jenni_S]

As I have been saying, there are numerous cases of people in prison, in the very same need, that are far more deserving of support for what they need. But here comes a big headline grabber, and we'll latch on to that one. What about all the trans people in prison for other things? Non-violent things even? But oh no, wet his is the one. Here's the case we're going to make the hay with!

I really don't care one way or the other what they do or do not get medically. I am quite upset that this person, this murderer, is going to be used to advance "our" cause. I say we don't. And the quotes there? If this is truly the direction this cause is heading, where the only important thing is "so long as we get ours, we don't care who our poster child is," then I am out of that cause.

[Guest LizMarie]

Jenni, you are attaching the murder to the need for medical care. That's a logical fallacy. The need for medical care is true of all human beings. When the state decides that someone is going to live the rest of their life under government care (that's what a life sentence is), then the state has the moral obligation to supply said care. The state would not deny this inmate an appendectomy if deemed medically necessary, would they? So here we have doctors stating that, for this inmate, the surgery is medically necessary. We can argue about that, but we cannot argue about the legal and moral requirement of the state to fulfill its duties as the guardian of this individual's life. It doesn't matter how that inmate got there or how horrid the crime was. And I agree that it was horrid. But as soon as the state assumes control of an inmate's life, the legal and moral obligation to provide medical care is absolute and clear. That's the end of the discussion.

Emotions won't change the legal and moral basis for this. Now if you'd prefer he'd received the death sentence, fine. You can say that. But he did not. He received a life sentence which has all the implications to the state that I said above.

I don't think anyone here likes the fact that this person is the basis for this decision. But the legal system is what it is. If we allow his medical care to be denied, we are consenting to medical care to be denied to veterans or anyone else. We, as a society, need to show more compassion than the criminals we incarcerate, not less.

[Guest Jenni_S]

OK, I'll explain this one last time. I am not talking about the medical care for this person. I am talking about the "transgender movement," or "cause," using this case as a basis for saying why everyone deserves medical care. I am not saying they should get it or not. As I said above, I really don't care one way or the other if Michelle Kosilek gets surgery.

My point is, are we really going to use this case, THIS case, as the proof it's needed? Should the transgender movement be using the case of a person convicted of a brutal murder to prove its point about medically necessary? You could find how many others to prove this. Other prisoners. Veterans. Those in shelters who can't afford a home. We all know they're out there. But here, a murderer's case, this is the one the cause is going to use. I find that abhorrent. Does anyone want to be saying thank you to Michelle Kosilek?

Think I'm crazy? Have a look around the blogosphere. Look up "Kosilek poster child.". It's already being said, and not only by the "crazy right-wing Christian fundamentalists" that seem to be the convenient scapegoats for anything nasty that comes our way. The cause is already starting to get raised eyebrows for it's stance of standing up for a convicted murderer. The more it continues, the worse it will get. Lining up behind Michelle Kosilek will not do anyone any favors. I already said, and will again, there are many, many people that are far more deserving to have people line up behind them. If instead the spokespeople choose to line up with Kosilek, well, they get what they deserve, in the end.

[Guest Chrysee]

OK, I'll explain this one last time. I am not talking about the medical care for this person. I am talking about the "transgender movement," or "cause," using this case as a basis for saying why everyone deserves medical care. I am not saying they should get it or not. As I said above, I really don't care one way or the other if Michelle Kosilek gets surgery.

My point is, are we really going to use this case, THIS case, as the proof it's needed? Should the transgender movement be using the case of a person convicted of a brutal murder to prove its point about medically necessary? You could find how many others to prove this. Other prisoners. Veterans. Those in shelters who can't afford a home. We all know they're out there. But here, a murderer's case, this is the one the cause is going to use. I find that abhorrent. Does anyone want to be saying thank you to Michelle Kosilek?

Think I'm crazy? Have a look around the blogosphere. Look up "Kosilek poster child.". It's already being said, and not only by the "crazy right-wing Christian fundamentalists" that seem to be the convenient scapegoats for anything nasty that comes our way. The cause is already starting to get raised eyebrows for it's stance of standing up for a convicted murderer. The more it continues, the worse it will get. Lining up behind Michelle Kosilek will not do anyone any favors. I already said, and will again, there are many, many people that are far more deserving to have people line up behind them. If instead the spokespeople choose to line up with Kosilek, well, they get what they deserve, in the end.

Well stated!

[MaryEllen]

OK, I'll explain this one last time. I am not talking about the medical care for this person. I am talking about the "transgender movement," or "cause," using this case as a basis for saying why everyone deserves medical care. I am not saying they should get it or not. As I said above, I really don't care one way or the other if Michelle Kosilek gets surgery.

My point is, are we really going to use this case, THIS case, as the proof it's needed? Should the transgender movement be using the case of a person convicted of a brutal murder to prove its point about medically necessary? You could find how many others to prove this. Other prisoners. Veterans. Those in shelters who can't afford a home. We all know they're out there. But here, a murderer's case, this is the one the cause is going to use. I find that abhorrent. Does anyone want to be saying thank you to Michelle Kosilek?

Think I'm crazy? Have a look around the blogosphere. Look up "Kosilek poster child.". It's already being said, and not only by the "crazy right-wing Christian fundamentalists" that seem to be the convenient scapegoats for anything nasty that comes our way. The cause is already starting to get raised eyebrows for it's stance of standing up for a convicted murderer. The more it continues, the worse it will get. Lining up behind Michelle Kosilek will not do anyone any favors. I already said, and will again, there are many, many people that are far more deserving to have people line up behind them. If instead the spokespeople choose to line up with Kosilek, well, they get what they deserve, in the end.

Well stated!

I fully agree.

[Ravin]

The problem is, this is how legal precedent works. What matters for a "forwarding the cause" factor in this case is not who the person is, or why she is in prison, or, in some ways, whether it was it was about a convicted felon. What matters is a federal judge held that SRS is medically necessary.

The reality is that the odds are great that on appeal the holding will be reversed, and the Supreme Court will most likely not touch it, and that will leave us with a negative precedent that can be thrown up when it is a veteran, a military dependent, someone on medicaid disability or whoever else.

That's how the system works.