Indiana AG Appeals Ruling in Case of Gender-Confused Felon
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita has appealed a district court decision forcing taxpayers to pay for a felon’s “gender-affirming” surgery.
Judge Richard L. Young found last month that denying Jonathan C. Richardson transgender surgery violated his Eighth Amendment protection against “cruel and unusual punishment.” Richardson is serving 55 years for strangling his 11-month-old stepdaughter to death.
Young’s ruling not only granted Richardson free vaginoplasty (creating a faux vagina) and an orchiectomy (castration) — it blocked an Indiana law shielding taxpayers from having to fund such surgeries.
Rokita vowed to appeal the ruling as soon as it came down, telling Fox News,
Yesterday, he made good on his promise, writing on X, “Prisoners like the convicted baby murderer in this case don’t have a constitutional right to gender transition surgeries, much less have taxpayers foot the bill.”
Rokita’s appeal benefits more than Indiana’s taxpayers. Young’s conclusion establishes that transgender surgeries can be “medically necessary” — a scientifically and anecdotally unsupported conclusion. Barring a successful appeal, activist organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) can use this legal precedent to effect policy in other states.
Young’s ruling benefits gender ideologues because he used materials from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) to evaluate evidence. Though WPATH bills itself as an objective medical organization, its affiliates and members have ideological and financial incentives to push people toward transgender medical interventions.
Young’s misplaced trust in WPATH caused him to disregard testimony from two experts finding Richardson — who has depression, borderline personality disorder and a long history of self-harm — unfit for surgery.
Instead, the judge favored the testimony of two WPATH contributors: a plastic surgeon who opined on the mental health benefits of transgender surgery and a psychiatrist with wildly contradictory conclusions about Richardson’s mental health.
Dr. Randi Ettner told Young that Richardson needed transgender surgery because denying him could “lead to [a decline in mental wellness], attempts to remove his genitals, or suicide or suicide attempts.”
But Ettner paints a much different picture of Richardson later in her testimony, arguing he could meaningfully consent to such surgeries because, “He is currently stable, has not been on any psychotropic medications since 2011…and has recently been noted as being free of any major mental health concerns beside his gender dysphoria.”
Ettner went so far as to argue that Richardson’s attempts to castrate himself weren’t signs of “uncontrolled mental illness”:
In case you had any doubt:
- Harming oneself is an indicator of severe mental illness and distress, not sanity.
- A person cannot simultaneously be suicidal and stable.
- A plastic surgeon shouldn’t opine on the mental health benefits of anything.
- WPATH profits from people pursuing transgender medical interventions.
- There’s no empirical evidence such interventions alleviate mental illness.
No court ruling justifies forcing Indiana taxpayers to pay for Richardson to further mutilate himself. Young’s, in particular, seems too obviously flawed to make such a controversial change.
Here’s hoping basic reasoning and reading comprehension prevail in the Court of Appeals.
Additional Articles and Resources
Taxpayers Will Fund Violent Inmate’s Transgender Surgery, Judge Rules
Activist Group WPATH Influences Judgement in Case of Prisoner Receiving Trans Surgery
Suicidal or Stable? WPATH Activist’s Contradictory Evaluation Secures Felon Transgender Surgery
The WPATH Files Exposes ‘Surgical and Hormonal Experiments on Children’
The WPATH Files – Transgender Interventions Are ‘Unethical Medical Experiments’
U.K.’s Review of Child Gender Policy Reveals Profound Failures That U.S. Still Defends
Denmark Joins Growing List of European Nations Limiting So-Called ‘Gender Affirming Care’
