A Clinton-appointed federal judge has ruled that the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) must provide sex reassignment surgery for a convicted baby murderer, ordering taxpayers to cover the cost of the procedure.
Judge Richard Young issued the ruling in favor of Jonathan Richardson, a biological male who now identifies as “Autumn Cordellioné” and is serving time for the 2001 reckless homicide of his then-wife’s 11-month-old daughter. Richardson strangled the infant to death.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC) in 2023, arguing that Indiana’s ban on taxpayer-funded sex change procedures for inmates violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
On March 5, Judge Young sided with the ACLU, ruling that IDOC must provide the inmate with the procedure “at the earliest opportunity.”
“The court ordered that the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction should be preliminarily enjoined to take all reasonable actions to secure Ms. Cordellioné gender-affirming surgery at the earliest opportunity,” Young wrote in his ruling.
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita condemned 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. We won’t stop defending our state’s ban on using taxpayer funds to provide sex-change surgeries to prisoners.”
Psychological Evaluation Raises Concerns
Richardson’s case has drawn scrutiny, particularly after psychologist Kelsey Beers evaluated the inmate and determined that he did not meet the criteria for gender dysphoria. Instead, she diagnosed him with antisocial personality disorder and borderline personality disorder, noting a long history of attention-seeking behavior.
Despite Beers’ findings, Judge Young dismissed her evaluation, asserting that it did not present significant new information that would change his decision.
The ruling has reignited debates over prison healthcare, taxpayer funding for gender reassignment procedures, and the broader implications of legal activism through the courts. With Indiana’s law prohibiting taxpayer-funded transgender surgeries for inmates still on the books, the state is expected to challenge the decision in higher courts.