A controversial decision by Clinton-appointed Judge Richard Young has raised concerns across Indiana after he ordered the state’s Department of Correction (IDOC) to provide sex change surgery to a transgender inmate convicted of murder.
Jonathan Richardson, who now goes by “Autumn Cordellioné,” was convicted in 2001 for the brutal murder of his then-wife’s 11-month-old daughter. Despite the heinous nature of his crime, Judge Young ruled in favor of Cordellioné’s demand for gender-affirming surgery, a decision which will force Indiana taxpayers to foot the bill for the procedure.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the lawsuit on behalf of Richardson in 2023, arguing that the state’s ban on taxpayer-funded sex-change surgeries for prisoners violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The state law prohibits using public funds for such surgeries, but Judge Young overruled this, siding with the ACLU’s argument.
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita criticized the ruling, stating, “Convicted murderers don’t get to demand that taxpayers foot the bill for expensive and controversial sex-change operations. It lacks all common sense.” He vowed to continue defending the state’s law banning such procedures, emphasizing the importance of protecting taxpayers from funding what many see as an unnecessary and extravagant demand.
Psychologist Kelsey Beers, who evaluated Richardson, concluded that he did not have legitimate “gender dysphoria,” diagnosing him instead with antisocial personality disorder and borderline personality disorder. She also noted his history of attention-seeking behavior, suggesting that his request for gender-affirming surgery was more about manipulation than genuine medical need. However, Judge Young dismissed her evaluation, continuing with his decision to grant the injunction for the surgery.
The ruling has sparked backlash among those who believe it prioritizes the demands of criminals over the rights and concerns of law-abiding citizens, especially in a case involving such a serious crime. Critics argue that this decision represents an alarming precedent, further demonstrating a disregard for public opinion and common sense in the justice system.
