Return to Transcripts main page

Dr. Drew

Convicted Murderer To Receive A Sex Reassignment Surgery; Scathing Review Finds "Rolling Stone" Magazine Failed At Journalistic Process; Indiana Anti-Homosexual. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired April 06, 2015 - 21:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[21:00:08] DR. DREW PINSKY, HLN HOST OF "DR. DREW ON CALL" SHOW: Tonight, a convicted murderer is going to receive a sex reassignment surgery. And,

you taxpayers are footing the $100,000 bill. Plus, does Indiana hate homosexuals or is the entire state just getting a bad rap?

Let us get started first with "WTF," the most shocking story of the night, dominating Twitter and Facebook. A scathing review finds "Rolling Stone"

Magazine failed at every stage of the journalistic process when it reported that a University of Virginia student had been gang raped at a fraternity

house. They are retracting the story, but the criticism will not stop there. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Seven men accused of attacking a young woman over several hours, an alleged gang rape during a fraternity party.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALEX STOCK, JACKIE`S FRIEND WHO HAS ALLEGEDLY BEEN GANG RAPED AT A PHI KAPPA PSI PARTY: it was almost too perfect of a story.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Details began to emerge about the night the woman named Jackie said she was raped.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RYAN DUFFIN, JACKIE`S FRIEND WHO HAS ALLEGEDLY BEEN GANG RAPED AT A PHI KAPPA PSI PARTY: I did not notice any sort of physical injuries. I did

not notice a lack of shoes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: As the story began to fall apart, "Rolling Stone" admitted they never contacted the men Jackie had accused. "Rolling

Stone" said it had taken Jackie`s word.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALISON KISS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CLERY CENTER FOR SECURITY ON CAMPUS: It was very clear that they had a story they wanted to tell. And, at one

point, from what it seemed, they were going to move ahead without Jackie or not and that is really disappointing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PINSKY: Joining me, Judy Ho, Clinical Psycologist, Professor at Pepperdine University, Samantha Schacher, "Pop Trigger" on Hulu and Kayleigh McEnany,

political commentator.

The reporter and her editor both keep their jobs. Their boss says the review scathing as it was. Was punishment enough? The question is do we

agree here? Kayleigh, what do you say?

KAYLEIGH MCENANY, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Absolutely inexcusable, Dr. Drew. But, you know what? In a way, you cannot blame the journalist because this

is fuelled by this culture that I see. I live on a college campus. I see it all the time.

This culture where we are out to get the men, we are out to get the accused. The first time we hear rape, we are automatically going to throw

the man under the bus without investigating the facts. We saw it on the Duke Lacrosse case. We see it here again. We got it in this culture and

we got to hear the facts out and not just jump to conclusion.

PINSKY: Kayleigh, I do not -- listen, I think there are certain sweet stories that people like to grab on to and it begs no alternative. And,

that is when they do, their crappy journalistic activity but this has been going on for a long time.

And, my problem is that people do not ever be held accountable. I remember -- Sam, I do not know if you remember this, but years ago in the `90s,

"Spin" Magazine put out a series where they absolutely insisted that AIDS was a syndrome caused by antiviral medication.

I had to watch patients die because the patients were scared to death to take their medication. No one ever took responsibility for that. Do not

we have some sort of legal remedy we can go after? What do you say?

SAMANTHA SCHACHER, HOST OF "POP TRIGGER" ON HULU.COM: There needs to be responsibility, Dr. Drew. And, you know, I hate saying that anybody`s job

should be called. But, in this case, the ramifications are huge.

PINSKY: Yes, but Sam, I am sorry to interrupt. But if the reporter reports stories --

SCHACHER: That is what I was going to say.

PINSKY: -- where somebody else loses their job --

SCHACHER: Yes.

PINSKY: They feel justified. They feel sanctimonious in doing that.

SCHACHER: I agree. There needs to --

PINSKY: And they have no risk. There is no risk to them.

SCHACHER: Right. There needs to be ramifications. This is not only that, Dr. Drew. Not only did they smear bunch of people`s reputations, not only

did they completely paint these roommates as rape sympathizers and victim blamers , which they are not, but also -- what about all the other victims

out there who already have a really difficult time coming forward?

PINSKY: That is right.

SCHACHER: Now, it is going to be that much more harder.

PINSKY: OK.

SCHACHER: When the statistic is already 80 percent of victims have difficulty coming forward, they do not record it --

PINSKY: That is right.

SCHACHER: -- because of situations just like this, Dr. Drew.

PINSKY: That is right. So, we know that this reporter, Judy, had concerns for this issue. She completely mishandled this case, completely mishandled

this subject. And, as a result of her behavior and the editor`s duplicitous behavior, has now created a situation where it is worse for

victims, worse. And, yet, no consequence. Just a scathing review. Ooh, wow! Watch out man, watch out.

JUDY HO, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: That is right. That is not a consequence that was put on them by the people who are responsible for the magazine.

So, this is part of the issue. You know, I add Sam said, there is a lot of problems and stigma against people who are sexually assaulted already.

And, so this is a huge problem not only for those individuals but also for the perception of everybody else, which is the bigger part of the problem,

Dr. Drew. Our country, our world blames the victims in some way.

PINSKY: Yes.

SCHACHER: Right.

PINSKY: Of course. Of course. Of course. And, none of us would take issue with that. That is a massive, massive issue. It needs to be

reported properly. We have talked about it many times on this show. Listen, hats off to people that want to discuss this, but you got to do it

properly.

HO: Yes.

PINSKY: And, Kayleigh as you said, there is a tendency to get on this bandwagon and just get into the mob mentality and not get into the nuances

that actually serve the story properly.

[21:05:00] MCENANY: Absolutely. And, I have heard it just in this discussion. We have mentioned the victim over and over, but we never hear

the accused. The accused was often times falsely accused. Just down at the University of Florida, a quarterback was falsely accused of rape, duke.

We see it here. We never address the brunt of the problem, which is we are too quick to jump to solutions. And, this attitude of constantly

protecting the victim and ignoring the times when there are false accusations contributes to the problem.

PINSKY: The publisher of "Rolling Stone" described Jackie, the victim -- I am going to talk about that. And, again, maybe we are using the wrong word

here. The subject of this story -- the subject, let us call her that.

HO: Yes.

PINSKY: The magazine starts bashing her and calls her, quote, "A really expert, fabulous storyteller who manipulated the magazine`s journalism

process."

SCHACHER: Oh, my gosh.

MCENANY: Come on!

PINSKY: They are blaming this woman.

SCHACHER: Wow!

HO: Yes. This is ridiculous, Dr. Drew. They need to take responsibility for their own actions. They have proper training to do an interview

correctly, to go through the due diligence they need to do as journalists - -

PINSKY: But, Judy --

HO: -- the information that they are representing is accurately.

PINSKY: Yes, of course. But, now they took this woman because they are not experts. They were not just skeptical about the story, they declared

themselves expert. They have a girl, Jackie, whom ever she is, that has clearly some serious stuff, mishandled her, made her worse, God only knows

where she is now. And, now they are going to shame her publicly. That is a girl that needed help.

SCHACHER: Right.

PINSKY: They did exactly the opposite. They victimized this girl.

HO: Right. So, now, if she was not a victim before, she is a victim now - -

PINSKY: That is right.

HO: Right, Dr. Drew? That is what we are talking about.

PINSKY: That is exactly right.

SCHACHER: Well --

HO: Right.

PINSKY: Go ahead, Sam.

SCHACHER: Journalism 101, I am sorry, you fact check, you talk to every individual involved. They did not do any of that.

HO: Amazing.

SCHACHER: It is absolutely beyond me.

PINSKY: Listen, I understand the enthusiasm when you feel that you have got a story. Here is -- Look at this. Here is the reporter`s statement.

Hear from the reporter.

"I allowed my concern for Jackie`s well-being. My fear of re-traumatizing her and my confidence in her credibility to take the place of more

questioning and more facts. These are mistakes I will not make again." How about checking with the mental health professional?

SCHACHER: Yes.

PINSKY: HOW about you check in with somebody go, "Look, I am not an expert. I am a journalist."

HO: Yes.

PINSKY: Do not declare yourself an expert. Just declare, "I am a fact finder," where you are reporting a story. Maybe she did -- I am getting

upset about this. Maybe she did check with a mental health professional. We do not know that she did not, but I am willing to bet she did not.

Because there is no evidence in here that she did.

MCENANY: No way.

PINSKY: Because this would not have been handled in this manner. That girl would have gotten help. Anyone with any training would have looked at

this and gone, "Look, there is a lot of possibilities here.

And, then the girl -- this Jackie, subject, did not cooperate with the police in the investigation. She declined to be interviewed for the

Columbia journalism review, the scathing review.

SCHACHER: I wonder why.

PINSKY: Because -- not only is she sort of concerned about how she is going to be perceived in terms of maybe she distorted some facts a little

bit, she is also worried about how these people are going to handle her. "Oh my God! She made them look bad." It is their fault not hers. 100

percent on them. Maybe you guys feel differently. Kayleigh, you feel differently?

MCENANY: 100 percent on them. And, here is the thing, you know, we mentioned fact checking, Sam did. These were very simple facts to be

checked. For instance, she said that she was gang raped at a social event. It turns out that social event never happened.

PINSKY: Right.

MCENANY: She said she confided in three friends. It turns out she did not. These are very simple 101 things you just reach out and you confirm

your sources and they did not even do that.

PINSKY: And, if you do not understand what motivates someone to lie and distort -- and by the way, she may have been a victim of something or she

may have experienced this victimization. Guess what? Whatever she experienced that night is nothing compared to what you, guys, are doing to

her now.

MCENANY: No.

PINSKY: Next, could the charges be filed against Jackie now? Is somebody again trying to come after her because of what these guys did?

And, later, uproar over a court ruling that will have taxpayers footing the bill for a murderer`s sex change surgery. Back after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: The story centered on a woman`s claims of a horrific sexual assault at a University of Virginia frat house.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SABRINA RUBIN ERDELY, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE: Seemingly, fraternities are calling the shots, where sexual assault is

rampant, where rape victims are afraid and discouraged from coming forward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: Within a month, however, the story from the alleged victim Jackie started to unravel. Scathing incites multiple

instances where it says Erdely and her editors failed to do enough to corroborate the Jackie`s claims.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KISS: It is going to highlight that perception that some people do not tell the truth. And, we know that is not true, but we also know that this

is under reported. So, the more that other victims see that is happening, the more reluctant they may be to come forward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PINSKY: Back with Judy, Sam and Kayleigh. And, the reason I am so incense by this story is I watched all those magazine articles 15 -- almost 20

years ago now and I watched patients die because of the fear mongering that was in print journalism.

And, what kills me, it is one thing if they are not held specifically responsible for what they did. Never even an apology, never even an

acknowledgement. So, how can you even learn? How can something like that be taught?

And, there is got to be some accountability for some of this. There has to be some remedy for people that are the object or the consequence of

reporting that is irresponsible, frankly lousy and hurts people. Sam.

SCHACHER: Yes, Dr. Drew, we talk about, you know, blaming "Rolling Stone" Magazine, which we should but we also need to blame Jackie. I am sorry, I

am always quick to protect the victims but you cannot -- just as Kayleigh said, you cannot just falsely accuse people. You are messing with people`s

lives.

PINSKY: Listen, Judy, I want to know what you feel about this. Kayleigh, I want your input too. So, I am sympathetic to people that want Jackie to

have consequence for what she did.

HO: Yes.

PINSKY: But, she was -- whatever is going on with Jackie, as a patient, as somebody with stuff going on, it was mishandled and amplified by somebody

who was frankly incompetent to handle that and considered herself an expert with an agenda and therefore did not pay attention to the needs of that

individual, seems to me.

SCHACHER: Well, she went to the school first, though. She went to the school first.

PINSKY: And did what?

[21:15:00] SCHACHER: She went to the school and pointed fingers. You know, that needs to be investigated. If yes, she has a lot of trauma. If

she is not mentally competent, then, of course, then measures need to be taken, but that does need to be thoroughly investigated.

PINSKY: Of course. Of course.

SCHACHER: And, there needs to be consequences, they need to be delivered.

PINSKY: OK. Maybe. Judy, do you agree?

HO: Well, Dr. Drew, I think you mentioned a really important point, which is that Jackie possibly was suffering from some mental illness or some

mental symptoms. And, here is the problem, right?

We know that with certain associations of mental symptoms, there comes a higher degree of reporting of sexual assault and abuse that are probably

not factual. So, it is actually sometimes a related symptom of things like borderline personality disorder for one example.

PINSKY: Right -- Or previous traumas.

HO: Exactly.

PINSKY: Yes.

HO: So, this is the problem. Right? So, she is clearly -- she probably did have some issues here. And, the school possibly mishandled it. But,

now, the journalists themselves -- this is a system-wide and institution- wide issue.

PINSKY: Right.

HO: That they are not taking responsibility when they actually have the power to hurt people --

PINSKY: That is right.

HO: And, I think your example of watching people dying in these previous stories because they believed what these journalists said and did not take

the medication. This is the kind of levels we are talking about here.

PINSKY: And, listen, I think we did it on this show. I have to suffer these stories about Super Bugs are taking over hospital.

HO: Yes.

PINSKY: Now, we have resistant organisms in hospitals throughout this country. We have infection control to handle that. We have had it for

decades. We will continue to have that problem and handle it.

Do not be afraid to go to the hospitals. But if somebody is afraid to go, guess what? The people that put that stuff on the front page of the

newspaper is going to have no accountability. Kayleigh, your thoughts.

MCENANY: You hit the nail on the head, Dr. Drew, because that is the biggest problem here is there is really no way to hold "Rolling Stone"

legally accountable. Because you look at a libel action or defamation and that is a private cause of action.

And, "Rolling Stone," this journalist was smart. She did not name the names of the young men. She named the name of the fraternity. There is no

lawsuit against a fraternity for libel or for defamation.

So, there is really no way to legally hold "Rolling Stone" accountable for what they did. And, that is the most frustrating part of it all, because

we are going to see more stories like the ones that you have mentioned, more lies from the media because we cannot hold them accountable in this

instance.

PINSKY: Because print media is struggling. I get it. You got to be heard amongst the group.

HO: Yes.

PINSKY: But, you have to keep your eye on the ball even more carefully and you have to qualify things.

HO: Yes.

PINSKY: And, go ahead and report things if you want, but talk to real experts. You are not the expert. And, the guy on the street is not an

expert. Talk to real experts. Get their opinion about it and let that be your guiding principal, not the need for a big story.

Next up, on the phone I got CNN Correspondent Sara Ganim. So, Sara you have spoken to Jackie` s friends who are with her at the night of that

alleged assault. Do you believe her story? Did they believe her story? I beg your pardon. Were they likely to believe that story?

SARA GANIM, CNN CORRESPONDNT: Dr. Drew, I will tell you this. The night that they were with her, they believed that something very bad did happen

to her. They said that they found it hard to believe that she could have been making it up at that point, because she was so upset.

They described her physical appearance, that her lips were quivering, that she was crying, that she was almost inconsolable. And, they do not believe

that she could have been making that up that night. However, over time her story began to change.

And, as she told her story over the course of about two years, the details drastically changed. And, when those same friends read her account in

"Rolling Stone," they say they knew immediately that something was wrong, because that was not the account that she gave them that night.

And, when they read the report that Columbia put out last night, Drew, they noticed that there were a lot of inconsistencies where they were deceived

by Jackie. For example, they were told -- "Rolling Stone" was told that they were contacted and declined to comment.

And, they say that never happened at the same time that Jackie was putting the blame of the deception on the magazine. She was deceiving her friends.

And, that is something that really hurt them when they read that report last night.

PINSKY: Listen, there is no doubt that whoever Jackie is, got issues needs to be handled carefully. She is somebody in trouble, not somebody that

should be dictating the content of a magazine that spread all over the country.

Now, today, you tweeted that a valuable part of the "Rolling Stone`s" story has been lost. Are we missing the big picture? In other words, the way

they failed to respond to sexual assault and that is our concern.

That not only have they mishandled an individual, hurt other people, but the story that they claim to be so concerned about is being diminished by

what they have done.

GANIM: Well, when they took it down offline, took it off their website, they lost a part of the story that was not disputed, that is true. The

part of the story about how the University of Virginia has historically handled sexual assault allegations and not just Jackie.

Jackie is just one anecdote that was used, a bad example we know now, but it was just one woman. And there are hundreds of women from that -- on

that campus who have been abused over the years. And, had come forward and had said that they were treated poorly by the university.

[21:20:00] And, so that part of the story, which quite frankly was a big chunk of the middle of it. It was not the dramatic top or the ending, but

it was a good chunk of the meat of the story, the investigative part of the story.

That is lost now because everything has been thrown out with this retraction because of the story of Jackie. And, you lose that part of the

story that no one is disputing it. By the way, the University of Virginia is still under state investigation for how they handled all those other

women`s claims.

Today, when I was at the press conference in Columbia, they said, you know, there were plenty of other women who were interviewed by "Rolling Stone"

who very easily could have been the anecdote that carried that story, the character that drew you in. But because they were not as shocking as

Jackie`s story, they were not chosen to be that main character in the story. And, that is really unfortunate.

PINKY: Well, Sara, thank you so much for reporting. My sense is that certainly college presidents and college cultures around the country are

taking this very seriously. The fraternity we have to in question here plans to sue "Rolling Stone."

It says, quote, "After 130 days of living under a cloud of suspicion as a result of reckless reporting by "Rolling Stone" Magazine, today Phi Kappa

Psy announced plans to pursue all available legal action against the magazine."

Now, you know, what I think ultimately is that this is a problem that is going to get better. I have kids on college campuses. I make lots of

visits to college campuses. In fact the point that one thing -- couple things that are really at the core here. Binge alcohol, everybody, you

want to find unwanted consequence, you find binge alcohol at the core of all of it.

And, to some extent -- I do not want to blame the Greek culture, but the party culture, the hookup culture, the way what is sort of

institutionalized on college campuses what is so social life is something that is pretty pathological, pretty problematic.

And, if they do not deal with that as well as the attitudes about sexual misconduct and unwanted sexual contact, they got to deal with all of it.

They got to deal with all of it.

Next up, a judge says a taxpayer must foot the bill or all of us taxpayers for a murderer`s sex reassignment surgery.

And, later, is Indiana anti-homosexual? We will debate that after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[21:26:09: UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: This California inmate is serving 17 years to live for second-degree murder. Michelle Norris where

he entered prison as a male in 1987, but began living as a female in the `90s. Now a federal judge has ruled the state must pay for the inmate`s

sex change surgery. But, critics say, forcing tax payers to foot the bill around $100,000 is outrageous and wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PINSKY: Back with Judy, Sam, Kayleigh and our segment, "Seriously?" A story that would be hard to believe if it were not true. The federal judge

ruled the inmate`s sex change surgery is a, quote, "Serious medical need." And, Sam, tell me what else do we know about this prisoner`s history?

SCHACHER: OK. So, the inmate reportedly shot and killed the man during a bar fight back in 1985. At the time, the inmate was identified as a male

named Jeffrey Bryan Norsworthy and was 21 years old.

Jeffrey was convicted of second-degree murder. And, in 1987 was sentenced to 17 years to life in prison. Jeffrey began identifying as Michelle in

the `90s and was diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2000. Today, Michelle is 51.

PINSKY: That is it. And, then she has been treated for gender dysphoria?

SCHACHER: Well, here is the thing, Dr. Drew. So, she was treated through hormone therapy but here is the thing. She does not have a healthy liver

because she has Hepatitis C. She contracted Hepatitis C when she was raped in 2009 by multiple inmates. They raped her

for six hours.

PINSKY: What?

SCHACHER: And, that was also her sixth rape. So, that is why the judge is saying listen, she cannot have the typical hormone therapy. This is

somebody who is suicidal. This is somebody who is clinically depressed.

PINSKY: Wait a minute. Hold on.

SCHACHER: And, if they do not go through this --

PINSKY: Yes, wait. Hold on. I got to bring in my psychological consultant here. Judy, this is way more than gender dysphoria. I am

sorry. But, even if it is just PTSD -- I mean just -- this is not just gender dysphoria, just is not.

HO: No.

PINSKY: And, by the way, I am not sure the treatment is treating the gender dysphoria.

HO: Well, Dr. Drew, as you know, gender dysphoria comes with lots of different co-morbid disorders. It sounds like this woman also has

depression, probably has PTSD along with a bunch of other mental illnesses. But she also has physical illnesses, as Sam mentioned, she has contracted

Hepatitis C.

PINSKY: And, I am going to interrupt you. I will just say, Hep C for everyone out there is a chronic viral liver disease most typically

transmitted through needles. So, I am going to bet that is where it came. It can be transmitted through sex But that is very unusual. But it does

happen. It does happen. It is possible.

HO: That is right. And, that is --

PINSKY: And by the way, why are not they treating the Hepatis C? That is what is going to take her life.

HO: Maybe they are.

PINSKY: Why do not they treat that?

HO: Maybe they are, Dr. Drew, but they were saying that the hormone therapy that they are subjecting her to is actually possibly making her

liver worse. She also has some --

SCHACHER: Right.

PINSKY: It would. It could.

HO: Yes. And, she also has some other problems --

PINSKY: But, they are not going to stop the hormone therapy. That is part of the treatment for gender dysphoria --

HO: Of course.

PINSKY: Giving them -- her new genitalia is not going to obviate the need for the hormones.

HO: Well, what they are saying is that it is going to help her feel more at ease with the fact that she is finally the gender, the sex that she

feels like she was born to be. And, that is going to help at least alleviate the mental condition.

PINSKY: All right, Kayleigh, I want to get --

HO: And, that there is some issues with the physical --

PINSKY: I want to try -- I am sorry. Kayleigh, let me ask you. Is not -- listen, the correction officials argue that this inmate received

appropriate care of more than 15 years, including the hormone therapy and mental health treatment. Is not that enough?

I mean is not there supposed to be some degree of punishment involved in being in prison? Or is everyone entitled to the highest level possible of

healthcare for every -- including fancy surgeries?

I mean what if she had some sort of body dysmorphia and really wanted to have something fixed, you know? And, then required expensive plastic

surgery. People cannot get that in the outside.

[21:30:00] MCENANY: Yes, that is exactly right. This is someone who has had hormone therapy, who has had mental counseling. We lost sight of the

fact that this is someone who has committed second-degree murder. And, we are advocating that she be allowed to have sexual reassignment surgery,

something that by the way, most private insurance companies do not cover.

HO: That is not true.

MCENANY: Medicare does not cover.

HO: That is not true.

MCENANY: Chelsea Manning was not allowed to have the same surgery by the veteran administration. So, all of these folks, none of them are allowed

to have the surgery, but we are going to use taxpayer dollars in the tune of $100,000 to pay for a second-degree murder convict to have the surgery?

That is absurd.

PINSKY: Sam.

SCHACHER: OK.

HO: Dr. Drew --

PINSKY: Sam first then Judy.

HO: OK.

SCHACHER: OK. Listen. We already pay for all the inmates` medical expenses.

HO: Yes.

SCHACHER: We already paid for their clothes. We already paid for their lodgings, why are not --

PINSKY: Yes, but Sam --

SCHACHER: -- Hold on. Why are not we up in arms when we are paying for other people`s treatments?

PINSKY: What do you mean?

SCHACHER: Do you ever see any articles or do we ever report on any other stories where there is another inmate, where we the taxpayers are paying

for their medical treatment, which we do?

PINSKY: You know what? -- No, of course we do.

SCHACHER: Why are not we up in arms about that?

PINSKY: Because this is an extensive and aggressive --

SCHACHER: No, it is not in this situation. No, it is not.

MCENANY: I disagree with you.

PINSKY: Well, I am going to tell you something. The treatment for Hepatitis C, the anti-viral medication is very expensive. That is what

they should paying for. And, she is sitting around with chronic Hepatitis C. Why are they treating that --

SCHACHER: But what about her feeling like that she is trapped in other person`s body?

PINSKY: I am not saying, that should not be treated. I am saying there are other ways to treat it than a $100,000 surgeries. Treat the Hepatitis

C and then let her have her hormones.

SCHACHER: We cannot pick and choose who receives medical treatment.

HO: Dr. Drew --

PINSKY: What are you talking about?

SCHACHER: We already paid for everyone -

PINSKY: Sam, this is -- this would be my approach if that were my patient.

SCHACHER: OK.

PINSKY: You treat the Hepatitis C, so you can treat the gender dysphoria. You treat it with the hormones. You cannot treat it with the hormones

unless you treat the Hepatis C.

HO: Dr. Drew --

PINSKY: That should be treated. It is expensive. And, they are not letting -- I bet you that is why it is not getting treated because it is so

expensive. Instead, you are going to get a $100,000 surgery. Why that one? Why not the expensive anti-viral medication? Judy.

HO: Dr. Drew, we do not actually know if they are not giving her the Hepatitis C treatment. They might be.

PINSKY: They said she has chronic Hep C.

HO: Right.

PINSKY: It is a treatable, curable condition now.

HO: They might be treating her.

PINSKY: It is expensive. It takes very short period of time to treat.

HO: OK. All right.

PINSKY: Then why are not they saying, "We are going to treat it and give hormones and then see what happens? Do you have to have completed

treatment? Do you have to go all the way to the mat with every condition? Or you can go to what is reasonable for the condition that they have.

HO: But, Dr. Drew, what we are talking about here is if it is medically necessary. And, also, insurance companies --

PINSKY: They are choosing.

HO: That is not true. If it is medically necessary, there is actually designations and definitions that insurance companies give to decide

whether or not this type of reassignment surgery is medically necessary.

PINSKY: Trust me. Of course they are.

HO: And, They are saying it is medically necessary for her. She actually fits the criteria that most insurance companies would set forth as being

medically necessary treated for gender dysphoria using the surgery.

PINSKY: Well, let us see what the statement from the transgender law center tells us. They have been acting as a co-counselor for Michelle and

wrote in part, "There is a clear medical consensus that healthcare related to gender transition is necessary and life saving for many people." That

oes not tell me anything. It really does not.

HO: No. That is not it.

PINSKY: No. None of this tells me what the criteria are this woman has.

HO: I have the criteria and I can tell it to you.

PINSKY: OK. Go.

HO: The criteria are that the person has persistent and well-documented gender dysphoria. She has that in 10 years.

PINSKY: Yes. Good. Good.

HO: Second that they have the capacity to make a fully informed decision about their surgery.

PINSKY: OK. Good. Fine.

HO: She has that.

PINSKY: Fine.

HO: She is age of 18 or older. She is that. She has a significant medical or mental health condition that is present. She has both of those.

And, she has 12 months of continuous hormone therapy as appropriate to the condition, which she has.

PINSKY: I thought they could not get it. So, therefore, for every condition that somebody should ever develop in prison, no matter how

extensive or how fancy the surgery, no matter what, they should have access to that? That is basically what we are saying. Now, I agree --

SCHACHER: No. Debate. That is a different debate. We are being discriminatory.

HO: Right.

SCHACHER: We are picking and choosing --

MCENANY: No. That is ridiculous.

SCHACHER: No. We are picking and choosing who receives medical treatment.

PINSKY: Kayleigh, help me out here.

MCENANCY: You are advocating for better medical treatment for convicts --

PINSKY: Yes, that is the point.

MCENANCY: -- for people in the prison.

SCHACHER: That is not my point.

PINSKY: That is our point. That is our point.

MCENANCY: It makes no sense.

PINSKY: One at a time.

(CROSSTALKS)

SCHACHER: Kayleigh, that is not my point. That is not my point. What I said is we already pay for all these inmates` clothes and their food and

their lodging and their medical treatment. So, why are not we up in arms about other inmates` medical treatments? When this inmate, deemed by their

doctor --

PINSKY: I would be.

SCHACHER: -- should be receiving this procedure.

PINSKY: The question is, to what extent? How far down the rabbit hole do you go?

SCHACHER: Of course. I agree. why cannot we have these inmates pay for these? I agree. I agree when you have convicted murderers getting free

medical care when we do not have free medical care.

PINSKY: Right.

MCENANY: OK.

SCHACHER: I agree. That is a different argument. I would love to see --

PINSKY: No. It is the same argument.

HO: But, the argument is top of the notch treatment versus medically necessary. And, I am saying, this is medically necessary, not top of the

notch treatment. That is a misperception of the public about gender dysphoria. It drives me crazy.

SCHACHER: Thank you, Judy.

PINSKY: Say that again, Judy. The what?

HO: It is a public misperception that this is actually somehow top of the notch treatment when it is actually medically necessary for some people.

[21:35:00] PINSKY: Have you read the Williams` study out of UCLA?

HO: Of course.

PINSKY: OK . We are not choosing who gets the surgery in a sophisticated way.

HO: We are not.

PINSKY: That is what the study suggests. We have not figured out, who, when, how, what timing and what conditions? Thatstill a work in progress.

And, I am just saying -- all I am saying, I am not totally clear that, that should be rendered to a prisoner just because they are in a certain amount

of distress. There are other options. That is all I am saying.

Next up, we have a transgender woman who is not in prison but cannot afford the surgery, would like it but cannot afford it, because she is not in

prison.

And, later, the Indiana law is divided a state. Is it really protecting religious rights? Back after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: $100,000, that is what California taxpayers could be paying for this inmate to undergo sex change surgery. The

convicted killer entered prison as a male in 1987, but has been living as a female since the `90s. Now, a federal judge has ruled that denying her the

surgery would be a violation of her constitutional rights.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PINSKY: Back with Judy, Sam and Kayleigh. And, some critics to the judge is ruling say taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for convicted

killers, sex change surgery. Kayleigh, why is it a constitutional privilege here? I do not get that.

MCENANY: I do not get that either, Dr. Drew. I mean as we have mentioned before, this is a convict. It is someone in prison, who are going to

afford greater rights than we are giving to our own citizens, than we are giving to our own veterans. It makes no sense.

PINSKY: And --

MCENANY: But, here is the thing --

PINSKY: Go ahea.

MCENANY: Her lawyers are claiming that this is cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th amendment because her medical treatment is

inadequate, it amounts to a constitutional violation. It is cruel and unusual punishment. That sounds absurd because it is in fact absurd. She

does not need the surgery. She will live without the surgery. This is a privilege. It is not a right.

PINSKY: You know what is interesting? I wonder if, Sam, the only way she is going to get to go to a woman`s prison is if she has her penis cut off.

SCHACHER: And, that could very well be, Dr. Drew.

PINSKY: Yes. That would start to make -- frankly, that would make sense to me --

SCHACHER: There has been other --

PINSKY: Because she is getting raped in the male thing.

SCHACHER: Right. Yes.

PINSKY: They will not let her go over there with the penis, then OK. I tried to get that.

SCHACHER: There have been other inmates, Dr. Drew in the same position that have actually castrated themselves, so they could be moved or at least

initiate that --

PINSKY: I think it is going to be more than castration.

SCHACHER: I know. It initiates that surgery. Dr. Drew, I am sorry, Kayleigh, but this is a necessary medical procedure.

PINSKY: OK. Hold on. Hold on.

SCHACHER: You are not a doctor. However, I do want to make the point, again, it is not -- if we are going to be up in arms about paying tax

dollar money to pay for these inmates` medical treatments, we need to be up in arms about everything, not just this one woman.

PINSKY: No. Sam, the question, again, was to what degree do we -- what level --

SCHACHER: How much is cancer treatment, Dr. Drew?

PINSKY: They may not get the latest thing because it costs too much.

SCHACHER: Then let us put it across the board. Let us put it across the board.

PINSKY: Of course. Absolutely. I absolutely agree with that. Joining us, I have a Jade Ponce. She is a transgender YouTube star. Jade, how do

you feel about this judge`s ruling, having taxpayers pay for something that I do not know if you had that procedure, if you want it. If you had to pay

for it. What do you feel?

JADE PONCE, TRANSGENDER YOUTUBE STAR: I am so up in arms in this. I definitely agree with everybody. As a trans-woman I feel for her. I know

how crippling gender dysphoria can be. Sometimes you cannot even get out of bed.

And,I know a lot of people that have killed themselves over it. That being said, I hear what you saying about not being able -- someone like me, I am

unable to pay for the surgery. I would love to have surgery.

PINSKY: So, you have to murder somebody first, though, Jade. You got to be a convicted killer.

PONCE: Exactly.

PINSKY: And, that is what we are talking about.

SCHACHER: It is outrageous.

PINSKY: That is the issue, which is it is not should the surgery be done. It is who should pay for it and when? And, why cannot Jade get it? Jade

is somebody who really needs this thing. Judy, you read all the criteria. Jade meets the criteria. Why cannot she get it? Why do the prisons are

getting it? That is what the issue here.

HO: And, here is the thing, Dr. Drew. Medically necessary has to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

PINSKY: No. No.

HO: Yes. That is true.

PINSKY: It is an insurance by insurance basis. Jade, would your insurance even pay for a gender reassignment?

PONCE: No. I have applied for so many different kinds of insurance.

PINSKY: There you go. There you go.

PONCE: But, through my employer -- through certain circumstances, they will pay a percentage. But, I just feel like it is kind of easy -- I did

not commit a crime. You know what I mean? What makes her more deserving than me?

HO: Right.

PINSKY: Right.

HO: There is two major criteria, though, Dr. Drew, that somebody has to go through hormone therapy for over a year.

PINSKY: Yes.

HO: And that has not fixed their problem.

PINSKY: Right.

HO: And, that they have to have very severe medical and mental conditions.

PINSKY: And, Judy, strangely, she has been in treatment for 20 years and all of a sudden needs the operation -- All of a sudden. Why all of a

sudden? I do not understand. And, now has hepatitis c. Are we positive that was not from -- other than sexual contact? I am just saying.

On its surface, what I think is outrageous. I think Jade is someone who clearly has done her due diligence, has lived a certain way, is feeling

greatly relieved by the treatment she is getting and would like to take the treatment all the way. She cannot get it.

A convicted murderer can. I am saying that is kind of outrageous. Do not we all think -- whatever circumstance creates that inequity, it is

outrageous. It is. And, it is just -- now if the guy is getting raped repeatedly and needs to leave the male prison, I get that. I would be for

it in that condition.

I still feel bad for the Jades of the world that that would like to get comprehensive care. And, remind ourselves, we have to be careful with who

we send for the surgery. We really -- There is debate about that yet. So, it is something you cannot just say, get the surgery just because.

There is debate. There is controversy still on the medical side.

[21:45:00] Next up, is Indiana for religious freedom or is that state becoming anti-homosexual, anti-gay? And, follow us on Facebook for more on

this story and others. Back after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER (1): If a gay couple was to come in, like say, they wanted us to provide them pizzas for a wedding, we would have to say

no. We are not discriminating against anyone. It is just that is our belief.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER (1): No matter what, whether it is a law or not, you would not bring your flowers to a gay commitment ceremony?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER (2): No. I serve a God higher than any supreme court. Judge -- he is called the judge of the universe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER (2): It does not mean that I love them less. I pray for them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPOTER: If you done serve them, it is not like --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER (2): It is not that I hate them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:50:00] PINSKY: Back with Judy, Sam and Kayleigh. And it is our most tweeted story of the night. People are talking about Indiana`s so-called

religious freedom restoration act.

People up in arms as soon as it passed because it wound up seemingly endorsing private businesses denying services to some customers seemingly

because of their sexual orientation.

I mean the restaurant could sing no to catering on wedding, like you saw there. She was not going to take her pizza to a gay wedding. But,

Kayleigh, my question is, why did lawmakers feel they needed this law in the first place? Why did they get down this rabbit hole?

MCENANY: Well, there has been a recurring effort in this country really to deprive people of religious liberty. We saw just last year before the

Supreme Court where they tried to -- Obamacare tried to force employers to give their employees contraception against their religious belief.

So, this was an effort to reinstate that. Indiana did what 19 other states have done, pent signs into law the same exact law but Obama voted for in

Illinois. So, this is a chance to come back at society and say, "We are here. We have religious opinions and we are allowed to express those

because first amendment rights."

PINSKY: Now, the governor of Indiana appeared on ABC this week when the law first had passed. He was confronted by the host and it got a little

awkward. Take a look at this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, AMERICAN TELEVISION JOURNALIST: Do you think it should be legal in the state of Indiana to discriminate against gays or

lesbians?

MIKE PENCE, INDIANA GOVERNOR: George --

STEPHANOPOULOS: It is a yes or no question.

PENCE: Come on. Hoosiers do not believe in discrimination.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PINSKY: Sam, what do you say about this? I -- I --

SCHACHER: It is --

PINSKY: Go ahead.

SCHACHER: No go ahead.

PINSKY: It is just on its surface -- I am worried -- I understand what Kayleigh is saying, but I am worried that we are legislating bigotry.

SCHACHER: Thank you.

PINSKY: Is that what you are seeing here?

SCHACHER: I feel that way. I feel it is discriminatory. And, listen, I have a lot of religious and Christian friends who also support marriage

equality and gay rights because, guess what?

To shame them does not seem very Christian to me. That seems immoral. It is no coincidence that gay and lesbian teens are five times more likely to

commit suicide because of the shame. That to me seems very unchristian.

PINSKY: I wonder if the control room can tell me, is that the same Indiana Governor we were praising so highly when there was that big storm that

slipped through. And, remember the stage got knocked over on a bunch of people. And, he was just really sort of heroic at that time. Now, he says

-- if it is the same guy in any case, Kayleigh, he says he is going to fix the law. What do they do to fix it?

MCENANY: So, basically, they put in a civil rights provision that says no one can deny services to someone on the basis of their sexual orientation

or religious believes. And, you know, I hear what you are saying but I do not think anyone is advocating discrimination, not Indiana, no one is

advocating that against anyone.

However, the question I would pose to the panel is if there is a gay business owner who made billboards and someone came to him and said, "I

want to put this sign up that is, `Anti-gay`." Would that business owner be forced to do that? I do not think anyone on this panel would force that

business owner to do that against his personal belief.

PINSKY: Wait. I do not understand what you are saying. Forced -- what?

MCENANY: That is the same thing. That is the exact same thing.

HO: No. That is not the thing.

PINSKY: Say it again.

HO: No.

MCENANY: A gay business owner --

PINSKY: Yes.

MCENANY: -- who makes signs, someone comes to him and says, "I have this anti-gay slogan that I want to print on a sign." No one on this panel

would say that he has to do that by virtue of having liberty in this country.

PINSKY: All right. Got it. hold tight.

MCENANY: By the same token, you have the liberty to not participate in a same-sex wedding if you so choose.

PINSKY: All right. Next up, we have celebrities weighing in. We have more to talk about after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[21:57:33] PENN JILLETTE, COMEDIAN/ACTOR/AUTHOR: These people are not being asked to engage in gay sex or even endorse gay sex. They are being

asked to sell flowers and cake to people. It is OK, I suppose, although goofy to be against gays. But it is not ok to be against people that

simply want to use your services as a business.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PINSKY: Back with Judy, Sam and Kayleigh. And, of course that is Penn Jillette talking about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And, Judy,

you say this -- even though it feels like it is indoctrinating bigotry, it may not be dangerous. It may not change behavior. Tell me why?

HO: Well, Dr. Drew, I think people are up in arms because this actually gives some kind of, I guess, legal precedent for people to actually not sue

these restaurants and stores if they were to say, "I refuse servicing you."

PINSKY: Right.

HO: But, we as human beings are actually horrible at predicting our own behaviors, even if we hold certain attitudes. There have been series of

studies that have looked at this. Asked store owners -- pulled them to ask them if they would serve immigrants. And, then the researchers sent

immigrants to those restaurants. And, guess what? 98 percent of them served these immigrants anyway.

PINSKY: All right. So, we are saying it should not be as bad as we think it is.

HO: Hopefully.

PINSKY: Kayleigh, I want to show a tweet to you that just came in during the commercial break. If you guys can put that up. It is, "Kayleigh is

misrepresenting Obama and Illinois legislation. Illinois has lost to protect LBGT citizens unlike Indiana." What is your response, Kayleigh?

MCENANY: Those laws came after Obama passed the bill. So, he did in fact pass the same bill as Mike Pence did. And, I just want to make clear, no

one is advocating discrimination of any sort against any same sex person. They are simply saying that they have a right not to partake in a ceremony.

And, I think that is fair.

PINSKY: And, so, again, I am not clear what the fix is on this thing. The governor will fix it. What did he do? Does anybody really know?

SCHACHER: I think he changed some of the language.

MCENANY: He said that providers --

PINSKY: Go ahead, Kayleigh.

MCENANY: Providers cannot refuse to provide services for someone on the basis of their sexual orientation or their religion. So, he is saying you

must sell to anyone and there is no basis by which you cannot sell to them.

PINSKY: Does that seem right to you? Is that the right fix?

SCHACHER: I think the damage is already done.

MCENANY: I think if it satisfies people --

PINSKY: All right.

MCENANY: You know, the damage was never done. It was --

SCHACHER: The damage is done because there is a hurt in tourism and there is a hurt in our economy. The damage has been done.

MCENANY: No, but the irony of it is that that piece of legislation -- Sam, that legislation did not mention same-sex marriage --

(CROSSTALK)

PINSKY: All right, guys, I got to interrupt. Because "Forensic Files" begins now.

END