Sex Change: Taxpayers should not have to pay for inmate's gender reassignment

In 2009, environmental activist Marie Mason was convicted in federal court of the 1999 arson that did more than $1 million in damage to a United States Agency for International Development and Monsanto research laboratory at Michigan State University.
She received a 22-year sentence, which drew a lot of criticism as her actions were seen as a protest against genetically-modified crops, a stand that a number of Americans share. But that is not the only controversy surrounding Mason.
Now known as Marius Mason and an inmate at the Federal Medical Center, Carswell, in Fort Worth, it was announced last week by her attorney that she had been approved by the Federal Bureau of Prisons to begin receiving hormone therapy to transition from a female into a male.
The therapy would last at least a year and then she will be assessed for surgery. First, there would be surgery to remove her breast. And later, surgery to complete the gender reassignment.
Mason's attorney told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram the transition will take several years.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons had no comment. The official line is that prisoner medical information is not "public information."
Well it should be. Because the public will almost certainly be paying the bill.
Mason, 52, is the first federal prisoner approved for a female-to-male sex change. A Texas prisoner was given surgery to become a woman after castrating himself in custody. And federal judges have ordered state prison systems to pay for gender reassignment in a couple of cases-though one order was overturned and in the other case the prisoner was released on parole before the surgery could be performed.
An argument can be made that hormone therapy should be continued for those who began their transition before incarceration. That would be a medical decision. But we do not think taxpayers should be forced to cover the cost of transition, either hormone therapy or surgery, for prisoners who make the decision while in custody.
This is setting a potentially expensive precedent. And we hope someone, somewhere in authority, takes another look at this case.

Upcoming Events