Look, I'm all down with progressiveness. I refer to Manning as "she" and "Chelsea" and have the requisite sympathy for her position. That said, while I understand that the two things are mutually exclusive, perhaps she should have considered this BEFORE the act of civil disobedience. Ultimately, if a condition is not life-threatening, I don't think the government is obligated to cover it, just because one is a guest of the state. You are in prison - you have to pee in a metal toilet, in front of a roommate. Liberty is no longer on the table.
Alas: the real answer to ANY question of this type in our society (and many others) is 3. It's gross to throw away so many people and, essentially, throw away concern about those who govern, guard, and service them. :o(