US Supreme Court: No state funding of sex-change operation

A convicted murderer in Massachusetts unsuccessfully argued that her Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment was being violated and the surgery is necessary to relieve the mental anguish caused by gender-identity disorder.

(AP Photo/Lisa Bul, File)
In 1993, Michelle Kosilek, sits in Bristol County Superior Court, in New Bedford, Mass. On Monday, May 4, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a judge's ruling denying a request for taxpayer-funded sex-reassignment surgery for the inmate born as Robert Kosilek, who was convicted of murdering his wife in 1990.

A nearly two-decade legal fight by a convicted murderer in Massachusetts to get taxpayer-funded sex-reassignment surgery ended in failure Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected her final appeal.

The justices did not comment in letting stand a lower-court ruling denying the surgery to Michelle Kosilek.

"This is a terrible and inhumane result for Michelle," said Jennifer Levi, director of the Transgender Rights Project for Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders.

The state Department of Correction, which has fought the surgery, did not immediately respond to a request to comment.

State prison officials, who say the surgery could cost as much as $50,000, have said in the past they opposed the surgery because it would create security problems.

Kosilek was known as Robert Kosilek when she was convicted of murdering her spouse, Cheryl, in 1990.

Kosilek, now 65, said in her legal fight against the state prisons department that her Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment was being violated and the surgery is necessary to relieve the mental anguish caused by gender-identity disorder.

"The treatment of Michelle has been cruel and unusual, according to two lengthy, thoughtful, and closely reasoned judgments," Joseph Sulman, one of Kosilek's lawyers, said Monday. "The DOC's behavior has been abominable as they have repeatedly defied their own experts in their eagerness to deny her desperately needed medical attention."

The prisons department initially provided hormone treatments, electrolysis to remove facial and body hair, female clothing and personal items, but Kosilek sued again in 2005, arguing that the surgery was a medical necessity and denial of the surgery was making her suicidal. Her lawyers say she has twice tried to kill herself behind bars.

A federal judge in 2012 ordered the Department of Correction to grant the surgery, finding that it was the "only adequate treatment" for her gender-identity disorder. It was the first time a federal judge ordered such surgery.

But the state appealed and that ruling was overturned in December by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 3-2 decision, so Kosilek's lawyers turned to the Supreme Court.

The Boston Globe reported in Dec. 2014:

“After carefully considering the community standard of medical care, the adequacy of the provided treatment, and the valid security concerns articulated by the DOC [Department of Correction], we conclude that the district court erred,” Judge Juan R. Torruella wrote in the majority opinion.

Levi said even though Kosilek has exhausted all appeals, the fight for other inmates will continue.

"But it is just a matter of time before some prison somewhere is required to provide essential surgery, meeting the minimal Constitutional obligations of adequate medical care for transgender people in prison," she said.

Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican who took office in January, said he was pleased with the decision.

"In this particular case I was not in favor of using taxpayer money to pay for this surgery," he said.


Associated Press writers Mark Sherman in Washington and Bob Salsberg in Boston contributed to this report.

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to US Supreme Court: No state funding of sex-change operation
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today