Fact check: With all respect.. im a longtime Democrat but Kamala was far left in my view. That's why we lost. She unfortunately really did say she wants taxpayers to pay for prisoners sex changes. It's crazy to hear when most are struggling worse than ever. That's ridiculous. That's 100% far left.

1. Summary of the results

1. Summary of the results:

The original statement oversimplifies a complex legal and medical issue. While Harris did support "medically necessary" gender-affirming care for federal prisoners in 2019, the actual implementation has been extremely limited - only two federal prisoners have received such surgeries. The average cost is around $50,000, not the higher figures sometimes quoted by critics. Federal law requires providing necessary medical care to prisoners, and courts have ruled that gender-affirming care can fall under this requirement.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints:

• The Trump administration also acknowledged legal obligations to provide such care when medically necessary
• The procedures require extensive medical and legal review processes and are not automatically granted
• Harris' current position is simply to "follow the law" rather than actively advocating for these procedures
• Federal prisons are already legally required to provide necessary medical care - this isn't a new policy
• Conservative politicians benefit from presenting this as a wasteful spending issue, while prison reform advocates argue it's a constitutional right under the 8th Amendment

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement:

• The statement implies this is an active policy push by Harris, when her 2019 position was part of primary campaign responses
• It suggests this policy is widely implemented, when only two federal prisoners have received such surgery
• The phrase "most are struggling worse than ever" is presented without context or evidence
• The statement frames this as a purely political choice, ignoring the legal requirements and medical necessity aspects
• It presents the issue as a simple spending choice rather than acknowledging the complex legal and medical framework involved