Judge nixes plan to trade jail time for sterilization

A Tennessee county judge last week rescinded a controversial offer to reduce jail time for prisoners who agreed to undergo sterilization procedures or implant long-acting birth control.

Judge Sam Benningfield introduced the plan in May. Male prisoners were offered free vasectomies and female prisoners were offered free Nexplanon implants, a device which prevents pregnancy for up to four years, in exchange for 30 days of credit toward their jail time.

Benningfield said his goal was to encourage personal responsibility and to give prisoners a chance, “when they do get out, not to be burdened again with additional children.”

But last Wednesday, Benningfield filed an order rescinding the previous order.

“I did not change my mind,” Benningfield said in a statement. Instead, he said he was forced to cancel the plan because the health department “succumbed to the pressure and withdrew their offer of services.” Benningfield said the department had previously agreed to perform the surgeries and implants free of charge for inmates.

The 38 men and 32 women who signed up for the plan will still get the jail credit, Benningfield said.

Critics of the plan spanned the political spectrum.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee called the plan unconstitutional because it violated “the fundamental constitutional right to reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity.”

“Reduced prison time is a potent bribe,” said Steven Mosher, president of the pro-family organization Population Research Institute (PRI). Not knowing the plan had already been canceled, Mosher issued a statement last Thursday calling on Benningfield to rescind the offer, asking, “How many prisoners will try and buy their freedom by allowing the state to chemically or surgically sterilize them?”

PRI said the plan was “eerily reminiscent of eugenic sterilization statutes.”

But Benningfield maintained he was just trying to help children.

“I wasn’t on a crusade,” Benningfield told the Times Free Press last Thursday. “I don’t have a ‘mission.’ I thought I could help a few folks, get them thinking and primarily help children.”

Polygamy next?

Acceptance of polygamy is at an all-time high, according to recent Gallup poll. The survey found 17 percent of Americans say the practice of having more than one spouse is “morally acceptable,” up from 14 percent a year ago and more than double the 7 percent who found it acceptable when Gallup started polling in 2003.

This despite the fact that polygamy is still illegal in all 50 states.

Even though polygamy is practiced in some religious sects, Gallup found nonreligious people are much more accepting. Between 2011 and 2017, 32 percent of Americans who did not identify with a religion found the practice “morally acceptable.”

The recent upward trend follows a prediction of many social commentators : Polygamy is a nearing eventuality in a country with an expanding definition of marriage.

“Polygamy is bobbing forward in social liberalism’s wake,” wrote The New York Times columnist Ross Douthat two years ago. “The now-ascendant model of marriage as a gender-neutral and easily dissolved romantic contract offers no compelling grounds for limiting the number of people who might wish to marry.”

Legal scholars agree. Last month, a senior lecturer at Emory Law School published Legalizing Plural Marriages: The Next Frontier in Family Law. Mark Goldfeder begins the introduction to his book with this note: “This is the first book that explains not only why the legalization of plural marriage may be on the horizon in America but also why the idea is not really as radical as you might at first glance think; why the legal arguments against it are surprisingly weak; and how … it would not actually be that difficult to accommodate.”

The book’s forward is written by Alex Kozinski, a Reagan-appointed judge for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who agreed, “By adding up the pieces, Goldfeder shows that polygamy is neither farfetched nor far off.” ­—K.C.

Mother of transgender teen appeals dismissal

A Minnesota mother filed an appeal in federal court this week arguing she has a right to sue state, school, and health officials who enabled her teenager to undergo sex change procedures without her consent.

A federal judge in May ruled against Anmarie Calgaro, stating that although her parental rights were intact, she did not have a right to sue for damages.

In 2015, while reportedly living with his biological father, Calgaro’s 16-year-old son obtained a letter of emancipation with the help of a legal aid attorney. Calgaro was not notified that her parental rights were terminated. Because of the letter, her son was granted Medicaid benefits and prescribed hormone therapy drugs and narcotics. When Calgaro found out, she was denied access to school and medical records.

The judge in May agreed the termination was unlawful and said Calgaro’s parental rights were intact, but refused to acknowledge those rights had been violated by the officials who guided her son through supposed emancipation and then sex change treatments.

“There’s a real disconnect in the district court decision where the mother’s parental rights are admitted but not honored,” said Erick Kaardal, special counsel for the Thomas More Society. Kaardal said Calgaro’s son was steered toward a life-changing, permanent body altering process by officials with “no legal or moral right to usurp the role of a parent.” —K.C.

Six gender options

Princeton students this year have the option of picking one or several of six gender identities, according to Fox News. The university’s online portal, called TigerHub, now allows students to pick one, many, or none of the following gender options: cisgender, genderqueer/gender non-conform[ing], trans/transgender, man, woman, or other.

The form tells students they can “select multiple gender identities,” and that each student’s gender identity is “confidential and is not generally available.” —K.C.

Everyday occurrence

Trystan Reese, who was born a woman but identifies as a man, gave birth to a baby boy earlier this month. Reese and partner Biff Chaplow naturally conceived the baby, although Reese has a beard and a lower voice due to testosterone treatments. Baby Leo was born July 14.

News outlets heralded the announcement as groundbreaking. But some commentators have argued the event is unremarkable: a biological female delivered a baby. —K.C.