that taxpayers support this.

I'm pretty sure he ruled no such thing.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. I found that story pretty funny when I heard it this morning...still do.

do a little search.......let me know what you come up with, bucko

"tranny tuck"? "tranny tuck"? What a queer thing to say. I know what a truck tranny is.....so how come I'm not privy to the term "tranny tuck"?......I'm thinking there can only be one reason.......

and it's not about me.

The judge ruled that...

1. The State has a duty, by law, to take care of the medical needs of its inmates.

2. For better or worse, gender identity disorder is an actual medical affliction.

3. The State is bound by the law to pay for the gender reassignment.

It's a very simple and straightforward ruling...have IQ148 help you out with it.

I guess in a roundabout way it does imply that taxpayers support it, since it was their lawmakers who make the laws, and they vote for them and have to pay for it...but he certainly didn't rule that "taxpayers support it.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. bucko? What an asswipe.

Let me guess, Scabby...you'd rather he be an "activist judge" and rule directly opposite of what the law clearly states...right?

Or is he an activitst judge for following the law?

Maybe he's an "activist judge" because he didn't consult you. Personally, I wouldn't consult you on the configuration of playground equipment, but I bet if you ask the judge nicely he'll be sure to give you a call next time.

Right.

Fish on...

Todd

Hell Toddler, I'd do the operation for free.......and save you a dime and the time trying to justify the ridiculous.

Apparenly Slabby, like most right wing fruitcakes, only has respect for the laws he likes, and not any others.

Big surprise, that.

Got a problem with Massachusetts state law? Move there and vote.

Otherwise shove your fist in your mouth and STFU.

I love it when shitferbrains think they are lawyers from reading a four paragraph story on a website...maybe you should be redhook's lawyer, he's gonna need one after his tweaker rampage.

Fish on...

Todd

In typical lawyer fashion, you misuse words to construe what you wish. "Respect" has no more to do with "like" or "dislike" , than it has to do with "compliance" and/or "fear", but then I don't find it surprising that you wouldn't know that. ...... And FWIW, you would fit much better in Massachusetts than I.....by a long shot.

Oh, I'll be shutting up all right.
uh huh

Waste of money. Now where will he/she go? Women's prison, or will they now have to build a special prison fortransgendered inmates who have had sexual reassignment surgery?

"I love it when shitferbrains think they are lawyers ..."

It's even funnier when you consider the source of that remark.
What a waste.

Gender transfer may be a legitimate medical condition, but the medical procedure is elective. Somewhere in the judge's ruling should be a discussion and rationale for why the state is liable for elective procedures. Many health insurance policies don't cover medical procedures if they are defined as elective.

I would like to believe toddler is just trolling here. He should know the difference between "elective" and "manditory". The ruling is one judges interp of the law. Not the way I would believe it should be interp but he is the judge and that is why there is an appeals porcess. Hopefully we would have it over turned as "elective" procedures are "elective" for a reason.

Want to switch out your equipment.......Do it on your own dime.

I would support the decision in the cases of congenital confusion. How-ever, elective surgery to have a sexual adventure are BS.

If they found it to be "elective", then either Massachusetts law allows for that, or the judge made a mistake. Just because it seems to be "elective surgery" doesn't mean that it is, or that it is under Massachusetts law.

It certainly still doesn't mean that "taxpayers support this"...to the contrary, I'd wager that the great majority of them do not support it. I'd sure not like to see my tax dollars paying for sex change operations for criminals.

Fish on...

Todd

Well, if the law allows for it it's kind of hard to hold it against the judge for finding that the law allows for it...even if he is a Reagan appointee

As usual, the usual dingbats chime in to rip on a judge for following the law. Seems they like "activist judges" just fine, so long as they are making up laws that the dingbts like.

Fish on...

Todd