Clinton-appointed Judge Richard Young has ordered the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) to provide sex change surgery for a “transgender” inmate who murdered a baby.
The inmate, Jonathan Richardson, who now goes by “Autumn Cordellioné,” is in prison for the reckless homicide of a baby.
Richardson was convicted in 2001 for strangling his then-wife’s 11-month-old daughter to death.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the lawsuit against the Indiana Department of Corrections seeking a sex change on behalf of Richardson in 2023, three years after the baby-killer decided to begin identifying as a woman.
Currently, there is a law in Indiana banning taxpayer-funded sex change procedures for inmates.
According to a Fox News report, the ACLU argued that the law violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Judge Young sided with the ACLU on March 5 and ordered taxpayers to foot the bill for the murderer’s vanity surgery.
“The court ordered that the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction should be preliminarily enjoined to take all reasonable actions to secure Ms. Cordellioné gender-affirming surgery at the earliest opportunity,” Judge Young wrote. “Ms. Cordellioné seeks to extend the injunction for the second time. For the reasons that follow, her motion to renew or extend preliminary injunction… is granted.”
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita said of the ruling, “Convicted murderers don’t get to demand that taxpayers foot the bill for expensive and controversial sex-change operations. It lacks all common sense. We won’t stop defending our state’s ban on using taxpayer funds to provide sex-change surgeries to prisoners.”
Psychologist Kelsey Beers, who evaluated the killer, had concluded that Richardson was not a suitable candidate for the surgery as she does not believe he has legitimate “gender dysphoria.” Instead, she diagnosed him with antisocial personality disorder and borderline personality disorder. She also wrote that he “displays an established pattern of attention-seeking behavior.”
The judge dismissed her evaluation, writing, “In summary, the court finds that Dr. Beers’ report does not present a significant factual development that would cause it to reconsider its grant of injunctive relief as to Ms. Cordellioné’s Eighth Amendment claim.”
Read the full article here