She might have a vagina, but she definitely doesn't improve women's right in the U.S. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-schmeltzer/palins-wasilla-to-rape-vi_b_125047.html Palin's Wasilla To Rape Victims: Bring Your Checkbook stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com Posted September 9, 2008 | 11:29 AM (EST) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Read More: 2008 Election, Forensic Tests, John McCain, John McCain 2008, Palin Rape Kits, Palin Women, Rape, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin Vetting, Wasilla, Politics News Show your support. Buzz this article up. Buzz up! Show your support. Digg this article. Share Print View Comments Like this story? Get Alerts of big news events. Enter your email address Hat tip to AmericaBlog for this one. In 2000, then-Governor Tony Knowles signed a bill in Alaska that ensured law enforcement around the state would pay for the processing of "Rape Kits" - forensics evidence collected in rape cases. Seemed common sense enough. Knowles noted, correctly, that we don't charge robbery victims the cost of dusting for prints, so why would be charge rape victims the cost of gathering evidence to apprehend their assailant? Except one little town objected, and had previously refused to foot the bill to solve rape cases - Wasilla, under Mayor Sarah Palin. Reported the local paper, The Frontiersman, at the time: While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests. Now, look, maybe this was long-standing policy, instituted far before Palin took office in Wasilla. Maybe she had been appointing people who would overturn this policy. Uh, no. After taking office, Palin fired the police chief, Irl Stambaugh (which made her a subject of a recall effort) and replaced him with Charlie Fannon. Fannon's view of paying to solve rape cases? Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams. So, for four years - from 1996, when Palin took office to 2000 when this law was passed - Palin didn't seem to have a problem with charging rape victims to solve their own crime. And if she did, she certainly didn't communicate that to her hand-picked Police Chief, who didn't have a problem with it. I guess that's one way to be a "Maverick." Of course, I'd be willing to say that Palin was just a part-time Mayor with very little oversight or responsibility, and it's unfair to say she could do something about it. But, as Palin has made clear, being Mayor was "kiiiiiind of like being a community organizer, except you have actual responsibility." And, of course, John McCain and his campaign have made clear that as Mayor, Palin had a ton of responsibility and decision-making pressure, which is why she's ready to assume the Presidency from Day One. As much as this seems like a post about Sarah Palin, it's really not. It's about John McCain. What I want to know is at what point in the vetting process, after going through Mayoral records, did the McCain campaign learn that Palin condoned the charging of rape victims the cost of processing rape kits? And after they found out, before he selected her, did he discuss the matter in the extensive discussions he had with Palin about her record and her views? Oh wait, that's right he didn't do any of this, because he made his decision after a short phone call. And now he has, on his ticket, someone who didn't seem to think that charging rape victims for forensics processing in their rape cases was all that big of a problem. Or, at least it wasn't a big enough problem to use her "responsibility" to change the policy. One heartbeat away from being President.
I'd like to know if there were any actually rape cases in Wasilla in which the city levied a charge to the victim. It's a small town; it may not have come up.
Does that or should it matter? Odds are that it will happen. Then what? Make the victim pay to solve their own crime?
From the a newspaper in Wasilla back in 2000: http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt
they were talking about this issue on msnbc, i may try to verify this but they said alaska has some of the highest rates of incest and rape in the nation
Sure, it matters. Odds are it will happen, but they were trumped years ago by a state law. It was only relevant for 4 years. So, I'm wondering if the issue came up in those 4 years and if the practice followed the philosophy of the objection. It sounds to me like the objection was an attempt to get funding for the expense of the kits (small towns will definitely feel it). Remember that Houston (?) police commissioner who said he didn't want any more mandates without funding? A law like that is opportunity to stick your hand out and ask for some cash. The little quote about getting insurance companies to pay is interesting. I'm sure the town would like to shift the expense to someone else, like an insurance company or the state, if they can. But, what happened when no one ponied up and it was a decision between Wasilla paying or the victim paying? Which way did they go? That's why I want to know. On the flipside, why did the State of Alaska feel a need to pass this law in 2000? Were they having problems with townships trying to push these expenses onto victims? Somehow, I doubt there are a lot of states who felt legislation was needed to prevent this practice. (But, that doesn't mean Wasilla was a culprit.)
I think it has to do with more of how Palin thinks and operates. From what we know of her, this lady sounds like GWB part II.
I was just thinking how does an insurance company even accept that? A rape kit isn't medical treatment, it's forensics.
Looks like it did, and the victims were charged. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/52266.html While some of their complaints have already been aired, Knowles broke new ground while answering a reporter's question on whether Wasilla forced rape victims to pay for their own forensic tests when Palin was mayor. True, Knowles said. Eight years ago, complaints about charging rape victims for medical exams in Wasilla prompted the Alaska Legislature to pass a bill -- signed into law by Knowles -- that banned the practice statewide. "There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla," Knowles said A May 23, 2000, article in Wasilla's newspaper, The Frontiersman, noted that Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies regularly pay for such exams, which cost between $300 and $1,200 apiece. "(But) the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests," the newspaper reported. It also quoted Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon objecting to the law. Fannon was appointed to his position by Palin after her dismissal of the previous police chief. He said it would cost Wasilla $5,000 to $14,000 a year if the city had to foot the bill for rape exams.
Hey, I know... let's throw a whole state under the ObamaBus. You all keep skipping the fact that she IS a Governor of a state with an $11,000,000,000 annual budget that employs 29,000+. Get over the "small town mayor" thing. It trumps "a neighborhood register-to-vote guy." I'm sure it's a matter of time before snopes gets involved as to the details of this one as well... http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/newsquotes.asp
we're not getting into a debate over her amount of experience. this time it's actually about policy and beliefs, and IMO it still sucks.
