The person is physically a man, there is no question.....He chooses to take hormone pills to force his body to act like a womans'.  He should be treated for his mental disorder and not be allowed to have his body altered at the expense of the taxpayer.  I wonder if our forefathers had this in mind at the time?   What's next?

Your argument and Wolf's are based on a faulty premise and therefore wrong. This man needs to be given psychiatric help not have his God given manhood taken away. This is truly the beginning of the end.

The outrage here is you are missing the point; know the state is going to pay for a sex change when they do not fix prisoners teeth... Something is seriously wrong in that... teeth and sex change is a medical condition, I fail to see the point here... How can we legally force one with out the other? 

I think you do a good job of supporting Judge Wolf's decision based on Constitutional rights. While his argument might be Constitutionally sound, does it make any moral sense? Strangling Cheryl McCaul with a wire was certainly "cruel and unusual" punishment. Having to live with the thought of how your daughter/sister/friend died is equally "cruel and unusual". The Constitution doesn't seem to care about these innocent people and the mental anguish they will carry with them the rest of their lives. So what you and Judge Wolf are saying is that it's more important for we as a society to make sure that a brutal murderer doesn't suffer mental anguish while incarcerated by paying for a procedure that innocent people afflicted with this illness can't afford? Sorry but I'd prefer decisions like this be based on common sense and morality. In this case we've made a murderer happy and have further damaged the psyches of those who loved Cheryl. That's not a society I want to be a part of.

We could just provide Michelle with magic underware for her major illness it would be alot less expensive, look what its done for Mitt Romney, but that would be a violation of the first amendment

Why don't you paid for it.

I am depressed. The issue underlying my depression is that I am in prison. To treat my illness you must release me.

Nice try, Yvonne.

Wolf also stated he was deferring to the medical judgement of DOC physicians, who recommended the surgery. How many physicians made an evaluation and came to that conclusion? Shouldn't Massachusetts also demand a second opinion on that matter?

As "incrdible" said, "nice try."  Nobody demands that an inmate be prevented from having medical care while incarcerated.  The jury (if you'l pardon the pun) is still out however, as to whether or not those like Kosilek are simply suffering from profound psycological disorders.  Should that be the case, separate him/her from the general population and prison psycologists will treat accordingly.  In any event, elective surgery (which is what this is, after all) should not be paid for by the public for an individual in prison.  Kosilek faced choices his entire life.  One of them was to offend society and choose to take the life of an innocent person, the pbulic be damned.  Now, in prison, "she" has chosen to demand that the state once again conform to another desire to appease his latest possible whim and the public be damned once again.

This is why the Republicans are going to take back the White House and the Senate this November.  Liberals actually either agree with this kind of nonesense or are even willing to have a discussion about it as though it has some merit.  Too bad Yvonne isn't sindicated across the US.  This article would be featured in every Republican mail out, political ad, and campaign stop.  It would read: "is this the kind of country you want?  Is this what Dems will do with additional tax dollars?"

I'm sorry but Wolf's decision is just absurd.  This is elective surgery.  Why are taxpayers paying for anything beyond what's absolutely medically necessary to perserve life?   I am completely sickened by this decision and its cost to the taxpayer.   

Cant disagree with te libs! It must be wrong to say this guy is murdering freak and doesnt deserve to have his odd sexual preferences met while in jail on the taxpayer dime.  And he will always be a he!

So now we need to cover anything that will treat depression? But only for prisoners? Next they will need companion pets, personal trainers and Jenny Craig diets for weight loss.  Prisoners should not be guarenteed anything for free because it will help their depression. They are supposed to be being punished...not compensated for their loss of freedom. Let the lawsuits for free perks surge! Embarressing!

If we had limitless resources, then ok, what you're saying might make sense. But we don't. What's a better priority, $20k for a murderer to have a sex-change operation or for food and shelter for the poor? 1 / 6 of our fellow citizens are 'food challenged', nonsensense like this is a big reason why.

Of course she is entitled to treatment, at her own expense. No one is paying my bills ... why and I paying her's?? You liberal thinking is grand but perhaps you should be funding it for her and leave me out of it.

This ruling makes no sense. As a Democrat in Massachusetts, I am ashamed by Judge Wolf's decision. The convict should get counseling, appropriate medication, but no amount of reasoning can make me understand why the Commonwealth's citizens should pay for his sexual reassignment surgery. This is truly madness. Let's bring back common sense.

Very patronizing column. Do any of the commenters here need to be walked through the legality or constitutionality of this decision? We get that, it's very basic, isn't it? The decision is a mockery of the justice system and a scam job well-done by a mentally ill murderer who seems to have the court right where he wants them. As for the rights of the murderer, this same request, issue and claim has been denied in Colorado, Idaho, California and Wisconsin, so it is not merely a matter of a murderer's constitutional rights. Judges in those states obviously applied other logic. This it the first time, mind you, that such a decision for gender re-assignment surgery has been granted to an imprisoned murderer. Once again, Massachusetts: we are first.

As with the judge, you are off your rocker. He or she or IT should have been executed. Is that cruel and unusual? I don't think so and not nearly as cruel and unusual as having to read this rubbish.

Yvonne.....Can't agree with your reasoning and I bet your wife agrees with me !

Whatever it is, it deserves to die. This should not cost taxpayers any money at all. Can't we find a back alley abortionist to do the operation.

I just can't accept that ruling. The argument should have ended with an absolute recognition of the incarcerated individuals sex, but an equally absolute no no no to a state funded operation? Have the criminal lobby for private donations. She doesn't deserve this because she is incarcerated and is most definitely not entitled to the choices free individuals have who are not...incarcerated. Especially those incarcerated for murder!

Yvonne you're as numb as the judge! This wierdo should be pushing up daisys.

It is a misappropriation of taxpayer dollars. The person is a criminal and should be treated as one. We have become way to liberal and no longer have the resources to be so generous. The government likes to outsource. Let's outsource the jails to India, China, & Kenya. That would be a great deterrent.

To pay for this surgery when there are people with real problems - can't buy food, don't have access to utilities, etc - is disgusting. This person lost his right to any special treatments when he killed someone, period. If he breaks an arm or something fine, I agree that warrants treatment, but to pay for this elective surgery is incomprehensible.

Sorry Yvonne, I read your article thoroughly, objectively, with open mind. There are too many other demands for our tax dollars, not currently funded, that are far more deserving. I don't get your principle or your point....Sorry!

You are completely and totally detached from reality if you think you can rationalize a taxpayer funded sex change operation for a convicted murderer.  It's good that you are only a writer and don't have a job where you could potentially hurt someone. Please don't attempt to drive a car either.

Let's see you raise the money for this "necessary" operation.  You'll be accomplishing two things: 1) putting your money where your mouth is and 2) satisfying the major protests against your opponents, namelyusing tax money.  Can't wait for yourfund raising campaign.  Let us know how it goes.  

I am obviously in the minority here but I agree with Ms. Abraham. As evidenced by the majority of the comments, it appears most do not agree with her assertion that being transgender is on par with other serious medical issues. I agree there is probably a mental health component to this condition but current medical research indicates that the groundwork for transgenderism occurs in utero and, thus, is not entirely a mental health issue and is not the "fault" of the afflicted person. Like other conditions, there is a range in the severity of being transgender and the level of treatment should be handled on a case by case basis. According to the ruling, "The DOC provides many prisoners with Hepatitis B medication that cost $18,00 a year". While what Kosilek did is despicable, if she suffered from hepatitis or some other socially acceptable condition there would be little to no debate as to how much health care is warranted. It continues to astound me that transgenderism is one of the few (if not only) medical conditions where lay people feel confident in dismissing the diagnosis of trained professionals. Politically charged as it may be, Kosilek deserves the same level of medical care as other conditions.

It is the matter of COST to the Taxpayer. I firmly believe it is time for people to put their money where their Mouth is......especially the Liberals of our society who want all things for all peoples but resist paying the cost of their demands for their principals and practices. The Globe could start a fund to pay the costs of the total surgery and medical expenses. Now if the surgery is to take place in 2013 under the Obama Care dicates of the Federal Government, then what??????In the mean time, to protect this individual from harm is placing her/him in solitary confinement and allow visitation right to the family/friends out of the question? One might consider also that idel hands and idel time leads to mischief of the mind for those so inclined.........There are many hard working or unemployed and poor citizens in this State who need basic medical care,and cannot afford care. Again Obama care is promising Medical Care equally for all????also with the usual ignorance of Government...No provision for an increase in Medical personel to provide medical treatment for the avalance of citizens that the appointed politicans will funnel through this bungle up creation of Obama and his cronies.....What type of logic is there in this in the original Judical decision???? this is my opinion alone at 80 years of age who has the fortune to get an education, work all my life, saved for retirement and obey the laws of the land, and retired from the medical profession.

You may be right about this person's Constitutional rights. But as a hard working middle class person who can't access good mental health benefits  for struggling family members and who can't afford large copayments for some medical services, I have a hard time justifying why I have to pay for this surgery with my tax dollars.  How about putting prisoners to work to earn some of these benefits instead of handing it over free of charge and at our expense.  There are many ways prisoners can be productive workers under supervision.  Let them earn some of these benefits.