Clinton-Appointed Federal Judge Orders Taxpayer-Funded Transgender Surgery for Indiana Inmate
Joshua Arnold /
A federal judge ruled that the Indiana Department of Corrections must pay for an incarcerated baby murderer to turn his penis into an imitation-vagina, on the pretext that the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the one prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, requires it.
In 2001, 19-year-old Jonathan C. Richardson strangled his 11-month-old stepdaughter while her mother, Linda Thomas, was at work. He showed no remorse for the crime, later telling a prison official, “I killed the little [expletive, expletive].” He was convicted and sentenced to 55 years in prison.
“On the day he murdered my child, I personally observed plaintiff with a fresh bleeding tattoo of my child’s name on his arm,” recalled Thomas, who obtained a divorce soon afterward.
For nearly two decades, Richardson was housed as a male in a male prison without raising a fuss. Meanwhile, the culture outside was changing rapidly. In 2018, Richardson heard about “gender identity” from another male inmate, who went by the name of “Pearl” and showed him pamphlets from California state prisons. California has housed dozens of trans-identifying males in female prisons. Not surprisingly, California’s prison pregnancy rate has skyrocketed.
Booking photo of Jonathan C. Richardson (Indiana Department of Corrections)
Richardson began to self-identify as transgender in 2020 and obtained cross-sex hormones. He uses the name “Autumn Cordellioné,” and that false name appears in the lawsuit filed by the ACLU against the Indiana Department of Corrections. Richardson testified that he chose the name “Autumn” after an ex-girlfriend from high school. Presumably, she would find his appropriation of her name offensive.
In 2022, he lodged a sexual harassment complaint, claiming that his cellmate had raped him in 2005, and that he had stabbed his cellmate in retaliation. In a later deposition for his federal lawsuit, Richardson revealed a pattern of having sex with men that dated back to before his incarceration. During his brief marriage to Thomas, the mother of the child he murdered, Richardson worked as a janitor in a pornographic bookstore and would engage in lewd acts with male customers while pretending to be a girl.
“I felt I was only a woman when a man used me,” he claimed. He also said he stole female clothing to wear so that he “could for a second realize the girl inside.”
Some of Richardson’s statements may be self-motivated. On Jan. 4, Richardson requested a reduction of his sentence, though he’s not eligible for release until 2027, claiming that the “circumstances that resulted in the crime are no longer present,” due to his transgender identity.
Under the current policies of the Indiana Department of Corrections, Richardson was allowed to transition both chemically and socially, but the department refused to sponsor gender transition surgeries, under a law the Indiana legislature enacted last year (IC 11-10-3-3.5).
With the help of the Indiana ACLU, Richardson sued to obtain gender transition surgeries. Richardson demanded a list of “Surgeries to Reach My Ideal Self,” which was presented as evidence in court and included “a ‘vagina,’ breast implants, a brow lift, a brow reduction, a tummy tuck, gluteal implants [Brazilian butt lift], a uterus transplant, hair removal, and wigs.” He later amended his demands to two surgeries: an orchiectomy (surgery to remove the testicles) and penile inversion.
On Sept. 17, federal Judge Richard L. Young of the Southern District of Indiana ruled in favor of Richardson, handing down a “preliminary” injunction, which he would renew every 90 days until Indiana carried out the surgery. This verdict seems offensive to the taxpayers of Indiana.
Young’s astonishing rationale was that refusing to provide a prisoner with genital gender transition surgeries counted as “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. He breezily dismissed the state’s argument that these surgeries permanently sterilize the subject by appealing to informed consent procedures. But the state’s argument is a good one: What is truly “cruel and unusual” is allowing mentally troubled inmates to permanently mutilate their bodies based upon their current feelings.
Even more astonishing is that Young could cite precedent for this travesty of justice. “In 2011, the 7th Circuit upheld a district court’s injunction of a Wisconsin statute that banned both hormone therapy and surgery for inmates suffering from gender dysphoria,” he wrote. This was a shockingly early decision, predating the Supreme Court’s overturn of the Definition of Marriage Act (Windsor, 2012) and nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage (Obergefell, 2015). Most current transgender lawsuits argue for a redefinition of “sex” under the equal protection clause, which was first proposed by the Obama administration in 2016. The 7th Circuit was pushing a transgender policy agenda years before there was any national transgender movement.
In all likelihood, the Indiana Office of the Attorney General lost this case from the moment it was assigned to Judge Young. An appointee of President Bill Clinton who is now on senior status (meaning he has a reduced caseload and does not fill one of the court’s slots), Young actively advanced the LGBTQ+ agenda during his time on the federal bench. In 2014, he struck down Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage—a year before the Supreme Court’s lawless Obergefell ruling.
Young’s Sept. 17 ruling continued his streak of judicial activism when he substituted his own judgments about grammar, biology, and reality for those of the state of Indiana. Consider only the following sentence, taken from the ruling, “She was born with anatomy traditionally associated with males.” Such a statement reveals ideological priors that the state never had a chance to overcome.
Last week, Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., introduced a bill to prevent the federal government from pursuing the 7th Circuit’s jurisprudence down the slippery slope of providing gender transition surgeries for inmates. Specifically, his bill would “prohibit taxpayer funded transgender surgeries for illegal immigrants in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins.
(The bill assumes a situation—required by federal law, but not currently enforced in practice—where illegal immigrants remain in federal custody long enough to schedule surgeries.)
“It shouldn’t be needed, just like we shouldn’t have to have a bill that says that only women play in women’s sports,” Steube declared on “Washington Watch” Thursday. “You would think that no way that America is spending taxpayer dollars to do gender transition surgeries for trans inmates and illegal immigrants in our country, but this is something that Kamala Harris supports. And our tax dollars are picking up the tab.”
During her 2019 presidential campaign, Harris responded to an ACLU candidate questionnaire and answered “yes” to the following question: “As president, will you use your executive authority to ensure that transgender and nonbinary people who rely on the state for medical care—including those in prison and immigration detention—will have access to comprehensive treatment associated with gender transition, including all necessary surgical care?”
Harris’ answer:
I support policies ensuring that federal prisoners and detainees are able to obtain medically necessary care for gender transition, including surgical care, while incarcerated or detained.
Transition treatment is a medical necessity, and I will direct all federal agencies responsible for providing essential medical care to deliver transition treatment.
While Harris’ 2024 presidential campaign articulated relatively few concrete policy positions, Harris did say in her first media interview as the Democratic nominee, “I think the most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is: My values have not changed.”
That provides small comfort to women like Thomas and other victims and survivors of violent, incarcerated felons. Thomas pleaded with the court not to allow her ex-husband to proceed with his name-change, gender transition procedures, and appeal for early release. “I live in fear for myself and my children of the day [Richardson] is released from prison, which largely increases at the thought that [his] identity may be concealed upon release.”
If the ACLU holds Harris to her 2019 candidate pledge, this policy could go nationwide, applying to illegal immigrants, too. “These are people who are in the country illegally. They’re in custody and they’re demanding these surgeries and medical treatment that are unnecessary and costly.” This situation, presumably, would be offensive to most Americans.
Originally published by The Washington Stand
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.