I think there is more to this story - I remember a quote from the sheriff saying it was a bill of like $15k they'd (the town) would have to pay for the kits - so how many rapes and possible rapes does that make when you charge something like $300 a kit? Anybody following this? That's a lot of rape for a very small town.

You'd think that with $27 million in earmarks for Wasilla alone, she could have budgeted a few thousand dollars for rape kits. But then, this is the woman who wants to reward rapists by forcing their victims to have their babies. I guess Palin is one of those women who thinks rape victims must have been "asking for it."

Why would any woman vote for this vile scum?

When was the policy implemented?

Was this something Palin inherited from a former administration, or did it start with her?

Did she have the authority as Mayor to change the policy, or was it completely out of her hands?

Good questions for anyone reporting on this. It should be possible to establish these facts, one way or the other.

When was the policy implemented?

Was this something Palin inherited from a former administration, or did it start with her?

Did she have the authority as Mayor to change the policy, or was it completely out of her hands?

Good questions for anyone reporting on this. It should be possible to establish these facts, one way or the other.

This one could be explosive. Unlike Troopergate, it hits you in the gut, while undercutting Palin with women. The fact the entire state had to step in to get the town she ran to treat raped women with dignity and respect is flabbergasting. Time to get those Obama female surrogates out with this and pronto.

It doesn't matter. It simply doesn't matter how bad she looks, how horrible her views are, how vindictive, mean and nasty she is. She is a star made of Teflon, and their isn't anything we can do about it. The more negative stuff comes out the more her supporters rally around her. Rape kits are just one of many, but people hear what they want to hear. I appreciate you pointing all this out, Steve, but the larger issue is that the media refuses to tell McCain and Co. that they have cried Wolf one too many times (and, seriously, how funny is it that they actually USED wolves...the unintentional irony meter just broke). If the media doesn't do its job and call out the Republicans for dumbing this election down to below the absolute lowest common denominator, Obama will lose. Sad, but I'm afraid true.

Palin the Feminist! Yes, forcing a terrorized and traumatized rape victim to pay for their own forensic testing - how enlightened, how progressive. I'm surprised Palin doesn't force them to answer why they just didn't lie back and enjoy it. Yes, this is "feminism" we can believe in. This woman makes me sick. And for mcsame to try to foist this woman off on citizens as the epitome of feminist ideals simply because she wears a skirt is a "rape" of a different sort.

Ah, it's the "She was askin' for it," tax.

Stay classy, Sarah.

A Palin spokesperson, contacted by USA Today, said the governor "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test."

Just like McCain agrees with equal pay "in concept." It's not fair to ask them why nothing in their actual records matches their words.

God, these people are beyond revolting.

So far we have learned that Ms. Palin opposes ensuring abortion is a legal option for women who were forcably impregnated by rape or incest and her administration charged rape victims for their rape kits.

When is Planned Parenthood Foundation/Planned Parenthood Action Network PAC going to invest in this race? I know Obama had called off 527s initially, but a group like PP is its own entity and has its own agenda - and there are important issues at stake here that relate directly to that agenda.

This is important because, at least in my community, a non-trivial percentage of the PP mailing list is moderate Republican women. Pushing them away from Palin would go a long ways toward denting the bounce among white women that the Palin announcement has given McCain. And these are two issues that absolutely would push even these Republican women away.

Can we start some sort of campaign to bombard ABC and demand they ask about this, among the many, many other totally legitimate issues they should be asking? Does anyone have any concrete suggestions?

I know, I'm probably just dreaming, but I'm ready to do something, but just your average SAHM, so not politically savvy enough to know how to respond, but I'm damn fed up as well. Let's do something though!

Was this something Palin inherited from a former administration, or did it start with her?

Why ask those questions? Their side wouldn't.

I agree with #1 inthewoods. Even at the high end ($1000/kit) you're talking between 5 and 14 rapes per year. The sheriff is quoted as saying they spend between $5,000 and $14,000 a year on the kits.

At the low end, we're talking between 16-40 rapes per year!! Frightening if you realize there are only 9000 people in the town. Sounds like they have a serious problem (or perhaps a serial rapist). Though I remember hearing that Alaska has the highest per capita incidence of rape in the country.

Finally, a way to shut the PUMAs up, once and for all. If any alleged "feminist" still supports Palin after learning this, they will be exposed for the hairy trolls that they truly are.

Hmm..I'm sure she'll divorce herself from it and the more others harp on it, the more they will be made to look bad. She'll likely just say it was something not brought to her attention.

Unless there is a direct link with her knowingly and willingly supporting this (and/or sabatoging the law that ensued), than I say it's a non-issue.

I think the Democrats have to really be careful and pick their battles now. If not, we then risk looking like we are on the very witch hunt they accuse the Dems of.

Not to say this stuff shouldn't be brought up--but in what context is key. If we can't get her to respond directly to those two important questions: when did she become aware of it and what did she do about it, it loses it's validity as news over time.

This could be held up as another example of why she needs to catch up with Biden and allow more interviews, come on Meet the Press and so forth.

This to me is the most appalling thing--they're keeping her at arm's length, keeping us spinning and guessing with all this high drama.

ENOUGH!

I really do hope this gets play, because, as I commented a couple of days ago, this one is, like John McCain's houses, a very hot little sound bite that people can understand. Add the info that Alaska has the highest rate of rape in the U.S., and this looks really bad.

They're trying to argue that they didn't want alleged rape victims to pay; they wanted victims to pass the bill on to their insurance companies. Of course, many people don't have health insurance and those who do might not get reimbursed. I don't think this particular version of "why let government pay for what private industry should cover" is going to fly.

Combined with her extreme Pro-Life stance yields the Palin Plan for Rape: If you get raped, it costs you $1200, but you get to have a baby (whether you want to or not).

[trolling deleted]

Here the McCain/Palin campaign defense.

We believe in keeping taxes down and letting the people spend their own money. If rape victims were allowed to purchase their own rape kits the free market would give us better rape kits than the government ever could.

Every time you turn around there's fresh evidence that this woman's completely psycho. Clearly she was able to give free reign to her political id up there in Wasilla--banning books, firing anyone who defied her, making rape victims suffer a little bit more because she just knew they were asking for it. A small-town Caligula.

At this point I have to disagree strongly with everyone who says that Obama should just ignore her and focus on McCain. She's the perfect symbol for the modern Republican party, and the fact that McCain chose her over everyone else tells use everything we need to know about him.

[trolling deleted]

Palin is Bartleby the Governor: she chooses not to respond.

HL Mungo - you're far to sophisticated! The correct answer is: John McCain was a POW.

RE: inthewoods @2. Come on, everyone knows that rape victims are asking for it, so it makes perfect sense to charge them for their exams. Did Palin make a profit on it? That is the real question.

Like someone said - It doesn't matter unless the MSM picks up the story and runs with it. The low info voters will never read a newspaper, blog or rarely watch a tv news program (What! watch news when they have Deal or no Deal reruns on channel 27) I live in central republican Florida and the Repug ladies are just enamoured with Sarah and tell me certainly this stuff is a pack of lies just like Mr. McCain and Fox news says (they're fair and balanced you know). This is what you are up against. Just so you know.

To Gorp from Gorp: Damn! That's some cold hearted shhtt!

There is no defense against this. If Palin says that she wasn't aware of something that the state government learned about and acted upon specifically to end the practice in Wasilla, that's just as bad.

McCain/Palin: We don't care if women live or die, as long as they for their rapists' crimes.

uh_clem:When was the policy implemented? Was this something Palin inherited from a former administration, or did it start with her? Did she have the authority as Mayor to change the policy, or was it completely out of her hands? Good questions for anyone reporting on this. It should be possible to establish these facts, one way or the other.

I think we already have the answer:

Asked when Palin learned of the policy, and what Palin did to try to change the policy, her spokesperson chose not to respond.

You can bet your bottom dollar if there was wiggle room on this, the "spokeperson" would have already been briefed with talking points to refute the charges, and a bonus slam on Obama.

A crisp reminder: while Senator Obama was changing the line-up of his VP vetting team because of WATB outcry, and while Ms Kennedy (et al) was actually vetting real VP candidates for the campaign, Governor Palin was charging the state of Alaska to sleep in her own house. Not clear what Senator McCain has been doing.

Well past time to cross "Being President of the UNited States" off the list.

Shortstop (@3:34), I was thinking exactly the same thing! Perfect parallel to supporting it "in concept".

And it just made my day to read a post from Insane Fake Professor!

there was a letter to the editor in my local paper today from a female hillary supporter, and a self-proclaimed pro-choice woman. and this moron actually said she was going to vote for mccain to teach us sexist men a lesson.

i'm not a violent person, but i'd like to track her down and punch her in the face.

orange

The case needs to be stated carefully. I've seen this pushback in the comments at McClatchey already:

1. "Prove to me that Palin wrote this fee-for-testing policy or explicitly supported it." Prove to us that she explicitly spoke out against it while she was mayor. (Whatever she says now is irrelevant. What did she say and do -- or fail to say and do -- back then?) If she was mayor while this was going on and did not speak out against it, either she thought it was a good idea or she was just not paying attention.

2. "Complainants weren't billed directly, only their insurance companies." Is this statement true or false? What about uninsured women? Were they explicitly told they couldn't make a charge without being insured (this seems unlikely), or did they assume they couldn't make a charge without being insured (more likely)? What would be the perceived and actual effects on a woman's insurance coverage if Wasilla did try to bill her insurance company? Did companies laugh it off? Pay, then raise premiums on the woman? Pay, but make the woman co-pay? (This seems unlikely unless the policy clearly claimed all rape kit payments required a $x co-pay, but hey, who knows?) Pay, then cancel the woman's insurance? I'd love to see some contemporary reporting on these issues if the state actually had to pass a law to reverse this policy. And I would think this would be one additional factor to add to the usual ones that make some women reluctant to file rape claims. Who needs to fear on top of everything else that your premiums would go up or that you could even lose your insurance?

3. "Wasilla was right to try to save money." If the costs of the rape kits were so horrendous that the budget of this small town couldn't expand to fit them, unlike ALL the other cities and small towns in Alaska, either they have a horrible rape problem their or horrible budgeting practices, or both. A good point to hit: the town couldn't afford rape testing kits or a proper sewer system, but it could afford to bungle the development of a sports complex, resorting to attempts to claim land via eminent domain, leading to a 1.3 million dollar debt.

In addition, this is not a health care cost: this is an evidence collection cost. It was wrong to make insurance companies pay in the first place.

(And from me, just to be picky: the vast majority of women who file rape complaints are rape victims, but a few aren't. I have no idea if any false claims of rape were ever made in Wasilla, but it might be better to frame this as "women filing rape charges" rather than "victims of rape." One is snappier and almost certainly largely or completely accurate, but you don't want to leave room for nitpickers, right? People can walk away thinking "rape victims" all on their own if the discussion doesn't bog down into picayune arguments about the old chestnut about many women faking rape claims.)

To John R: I don't think those ladies you're describing are accessible to us anyways. That's not who we're fighting for, we're fighting for Republican-leaning moderates (think the Colin Powell, Richard Lugar Republican).

I don't see why we should take the "Palin opposed this" line - let's just go with the facts that she was mayor and this was the policy and she didn't fight it and thus was for it.

Repeat after me: Sarah Palin favored charging rape victims for rape kits.

Me too angry to type, correction:

McCain/Palin: We don't care if women live or die, as long as they PAY for their rapists' crimes.

"Asked when Palin learned of the policy, and what Palin did to try to change the policy, her spokesperson chose not to respond."

I guess power means not having to respond. Ms. Palin may be the most powerful woman in the world right now. She doesn't have to answer to anyone for anything. Or so she thinks.

The shit is going to hit the fan any minute and I can't wait...

Ah, not one but two dog whistles going out to the vital "rapist wanting a family" demographic!

Combine the "rapist wanting a family" demo with the "rabid anti-semite" demo and the "have boobs, must vote for boobs" demo and McCain's found himself a real winner here!

Alaska loves Palin Then keep her there as your governor.

Alaska loves Palin Then keep her there as your governor.

orwell:She paid men to rape and impregnate women so that they would be forced to have more babies.. She personally sent coat hangers to all the doctors in town... She passed a law outlawing all birth control.. yeah, yeah she is evil.

Now, that's just not right. If she had done any of those things, it would've been a chance for more applause and standing ovations at the Republican convention.

@ MaryL: That's not pushback, its denial. We're trying to reach the people on the fence, not the people who refuse to believe in reality because it has a leftwing bias.

anon, I agree that people making these arguments are in denial. But if the media, Obama or a 527 don't make their case very carefully in any statement or ad, and Factcheck.org points out one tiny quibble, the McCain campaign will leap on it and scream sexism.

Maybe I'm just overcautious, and a simple ad pointing out what we know would be very effective even if McCain lies and blusters in return, but right now, Palin is a surprisingly sympathetic and popular figure, even here in liberal Toronto. I'd hate to see any more moderates and women peeled off from Obama's base. I know he's still doing quite well with independents and women, but the Republican framing of him as a man who bullies women must be considered.

Yes, I think the Republicans could somehow make Palin out to be a victim, even in this story. They may alienate liberals and the media, but they can still whip up the base and get some fence sitters.

I still think the policy was odious and more evidence of what a mean, petty woman she is. I just want to see what additional details come out over the next day or so. I've been burned before.

The math here is pretty staggering.

In 2000, assuming the police chief's numbers are to be believed, Wasilla's rape statistics were somewhere from 2.5 to 28 (!) times the national average. Faced with that, the police chief's goal was to cut costs? What's up with that?

Based on national average: 5,495 * 0.003 = 1.65 rapes per year (horrific enough)
Wasilla minimum: $5,000/$1,200 = 4.17 rapes per year
Wasilla maximum: $12,000/$300 = 46.67 rapes per year

2000 Wasilla population: 5,496 (source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2008/aug/30/justhowsmalliswasillaalak)

0.3 per 1,000: US rapes per capita (source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita)

Orwell, you're hilarious, and so is the new "conservative" double standard (not one thing conserved either; not on the national level, not that I've witnessed). Again and again, anything remotely controversial can be thrown at the Democratic candidate ad nauseam (not that the 'new "conservatives"' only do this during election time!) but when the same technique is applied to a "new "conservatives" all the 'new "conservatives"' accuse the charges as wild and inaccurate! Where are we, on the moon? Oh no, we're in Alaska making rape victims pay for diagnostics! It sounds right up Sarah Palin's alley, so to speak. I love how the new conservatives can simply overlook her daughter's teen pregnancy too, how conservative!

It's time for someone to post a big flashing counter at the top of websites clicking off each time McCain/Palin tell a lie.

I think there is more to this story - I remember a quote from the sheriff saying it was a bill of like $15k they'd (the town) would have to pay for the kits

Even if it was $15k, so what? Isn't it their job? That's what the taxes pay for - it's law enforcement. Does a store that's been burglarized need to pay for forensics?

At this point, I'm surprised that Wasilla wasn't requiring rape victims to pay their attackers for the sperm donation.
Maybe I shouldn't give Republicans any more ideas....

As thrilled as I am to see the return of Insane Fake Professor, I really think Insane Fake British Author.

Wouldn't you agree Orwell?

Twit.

It sounds like Palin did to Wasilla what Bush did to the USA. You have the Micro and the Macro examples of compassionate conservatism. They will express their sympathy for you after they are done stabbing you in the back.

Someone on Obama's team has to find an actual victim who had to pay for her own rape test -- and have her talk directly to camera, describing what it felt like being victimized a second time -- by Sarah Palin's policy.

So how did/does Wasilla treat other crime victims? If someone breaks into your house do you have to pay for the police to investigate? To single out female victims of sexual assualt is just mindboggling and makes me nauseous just to think about it.

Not to mention that Alaska has one of the highest rates of rape in the country-- 2.4 times the national average. So this also goes into asking Palin what she did as governor in regards to rape prevention.

For any woman who think having a woman in charge is better just because she's a woman is in for a rude awakening. Being a woman does not make someone good on women's issues.

[trolling deleted]

First, Mr. Moderator, sir, "Insane Fake Professor" is not a troll but a parody of one in particular, a well-beloved regular from TCBR whose re-appearance is welcomed by the old members -- and I say that despite the fact that she doesn't like me or my self-referential posts that much.

Please do not delete her posts, or those of the "McCain Blog Outreach Co-Ordinator" whose posts add a delightful touch of deadpan humor that helps discussions that can get heated and far too grim. (No, I am hardly either one. If I had one-tenth that level of talent I'd be too busy writing professionally to have time for here.)

[Duly noted. Thanks for the heads up. -Mod]

I agree with those who think this can be like McCain's houses, a simple, deadly example that punctures the pretensions of the Alaska BubbleGum (I call her that because she's going to explode, leaving a sticky mess all over McCain's face, long before November). There's no need to run calculations about rape victims, or make the sort of tasteless comments Keori did above. The existence of the policy all by itself -- even if it was only implimented rarely, which does not seem to be the case -- is enough, don't try to embellish it and give the Terrible Twosome a chance to deflect criticism of it.

Let's see...Illinois...Illinois...2003...that's right; Obama was an Illinois state Senator then. I guess this kind of petty thing was also above Obama's pay grade. Because he was being paid to commit negligence, not actually do anything.

Sorry, I missed the part in your story where the rape victims were required to raise the $3 million themselves. Can you point out the part where crime victims in Illinois had to pay out of pocket to have evidence collected that would help prosecute the crime that was committed against them?

Nice to know that conservatives think crime victims should have to pay the police department out of their own pockets to investigate crimes against them.

Hey, inthewoods!!! "That's a lot of rape for a very small town," eh? Do some fact checking first, would ya? From: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm
"In 2000, there were 497 rapes reported in Alaska, FBI statistics show. That's a rate of 79.3 per 100,000 residents, the highest in the nation."

[trolling deleted]

Posted by: Insane Fake Professor on September 11, 2008 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

Now that's funny!

Now that's funny!

You laugh while Obama fiddles while women burn!

WASILLA, Alaska — In 2000, Alaska lawmakers learned that rural police agencies had been billing rape victims or their insurance companies $500 to $1,200 for the costs of the forensic medical examinations used to gather evidence. They quickly passed a law prohibiting the practice.
According to the sponsor, Democrat Eric Croft, the law was aimed in part at Wasilla, where now-Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor. When it was signed, Wasilla's police chief expressed displeasure.

"In the past, we've charged the cost of exams to the victims' insurance company when possible," then-chief Charlie Fannon told the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, the local newspaper. "I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer."

Now that Palin is the Republican nominee for vice president, Democrats such as former Alaska governor Tony Knowles — who signed the rape-kit bill into law and was defeated by Palin in 2006 — are raising the issue to question Palin's commitment to women's issues and crime victims. Palin appointed Fannon after firing his predecessor shortly after she took office in 1996.

You people should really read the entire story. This law was NOT aimed specifically at Wasilla, the patients' insurance companies, not the patients, were charged, and this whole smear was raised by the Democrat she beat for her governor's seat!

This is a ridiculous thing to even bring up, and makes us look petty and vindictive.

this is america! not all rape victims have health insurance! christ.

You people should really read the entire story.

Good idea. You first.

This law was NOT aimed specifically at Wasilla,

Where should we read? This part? "...the law was aimed in part at Wasilla."

the patients' insurance companies, not the patients, were charged

Um, except for when the patients were charged: "had been billing rape victims or their insurance companies $500 to $1,200 for the costs of the forensic medical examinations " and "we've charged the cost of exams to the victims' insurance company when possible."

and this whole smear was raised by the Democrat she beat for her governor's seat!

...who was also the governor who signed the rape-kit bill into law in 2000. But perhaps you think he did that preemptively vindictively, predicting that he would be running against the mayor of this two-bit town six years later?

This is a ridiculous thing to even bring up, and makes us look petty and vindictive.

Who's this "us," CT?

Rape kits are law enforcement equipment used for evidence collection and processing by qualified law enforcement officers or officially designated medical personnel. That means the money for them comes out of law enforcement equipment budgets, paid for by the taxpayers. Period. End of fucking story.

If Mayor Palin's hand-picked chief of police was complaining about this legislation, you know the Mayor had been informed of the town's policy during the state legislative hearings prior to the state law being voted on and signed. It was brought to her attention, and she didn't care enough to change it. Mayor Palin supported violating a rape victim for the second time (third time if she was lucky enough to conceive!).

After scoring $27 million in earmarks for a town of 9,000 people that vile bitch couldn't be bothered to budget a few thousand dollars for rape kits for her own constituents, her fellow women. Are we surprised? No.

This one's going nowhere, because it will inevitably be shown to be an exaggeration. And then, just like right-wing exaggerations of Obama's record, rather than publicize the truth, the left will just let it slide.

The knee-jerk responses to this would be hilarious if it weren't such a serious subject. Check that: they're hilarious anyway. It doesn't take a whole lot of time to go online and find out that in the period during which Palin was Wasilla's mayor (1996-2002), there were a total of 26 reported sexual assaults (not necessarily the same as rape, but one might view this as a maximum number of rape kits that were actually used). An average of 3-4 per year. So why $4000-15000/yr. for rape kits for the town? Did anyone consider that such kits have expiration dates?

Other questions worth asking: how many of those 26 victims of sexual assault needed a rape kit? How many of those, in turn, were forced to pay for it themselves? Any? Or did the authorities in Wasilla, up to and including Palin, manage to bill insurance companies or otherwise swallow the cost without becoming the monsters the purveyors of this story want to make them out to be?

The point is simply that you don't know. So stop the jumping to conclusions. You embarrass yourselves.

Does Palin have any quotable record on the subject? Or is it just the chief of police -- who, while hand-picked, was nevertheless unanimously confirmed by the city council? And let's not forget that Palin later endorsed not him but his rival during the Wasilla mayoral election that occurred while she was running for governor. Or didn't anyone mention that? Oh, and did anyone mention that the chief of police, while insensitive in the extreme in objecting to the law that forced the town to pay for the kits, also voiced his desire to have the criminal pay the costs? All of this matters, because there is no record for Palin on the subject; everything starts with the former chief of police, who might just have an axe to grind.

"In the past, we've charged the cost of exams to the victims' insurance company when possible," --akw, @19:52

Funny... You, yourself, bolded the "when possible" bit. And then never troubled your pretty little head about the corollary -- what if is *wasn't* possible?

Additionally, in some of the articles I read, the procedure was described differently: the police billed the victim upfront -- show me the colour of your money first -- and left the victim to hassle the insurance company to give them their money back. Having, just recently, battled about getting my money back from my insurance company (and being in the middle of another battle, ditto), I can tell you straight off that it's not something a traumatised person will have the energy to do; I wouldn't wish you to be raped and thrown into that kind of bureaucratic nightmare. On second thought... Perhhaps I would; the experience might prove salutary.

That whole situation reminds me of the famous (infamous?) way that London used to deal with fires *in the 18th and 19th century*. There were several fire insurance companies, from whom you could buy a plan. You affixed the company's badge to your house. Your house caught fire, the company's firefighters would come and look to see if your house had *their* badge. Then, they'd check to make sure you were all paid up. If the badge was for a different company or if your bill was outstanding, they'd pack up and go home. Maybe saturate the house next door, if it had their badge and if the wind was blowing that way.

you also say:
[...]this whole smear was raised by the Democrat she beat for her governor's seat!

I thought she beat a *Republican* (Murkowski), for her governor's seat? I thought that was the *whole point* of her Maverickety/reformist (more like reformatory) image? That she took on *her own*, corrupted, party?

Are you in Alaska, akw? I didn't realise you had a long enough rainy season there, to make such wet mush of your brain...

Well said, Keori.
I have been curious how many Native Alaskans lived in Wasilla while she was mayor. Rape is a huge issue for Native Americans and I'm just wondering if the same is true for Native Alaskans. I've read differing accounts of Native Alaskans' opinion of her as governor, the least favorable (but always so politely phrased) coming as a result of her support of mining companies rights to pollute streams with their toxins.

It doesn't take a whole lot of time to go online and find out that in the period during which Palin was Wasilla's mayor (1996-2002), there were a total of 26 reported sexual assaults (not necessarily the same as rape, but one might view this as a maximum number of rape kits that were actually used).

What, she magically found out this was happening while she was mayor but had no idea at all while she was on the city council, even though the police chief complained about it? Isn't she supposed to be the tough, on-the-ball reformer? Why did she spend $12 million on a sports complex that no one wanted and not a dime on crime victims until she was forced to by the state?

Again, fascinating that conservatives think that crime victims should have to pay to have the crime against them investigated.

"In the past, we've charged the cost of exams to the victims' insurance company when possible," then-chief Charlie Fannon told the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, the local newspaper. "I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer."

Well, there's a Republican for you. As a Democrat, I just don't want to see any more burden put on the rape victim. Shows where our priorities lie, I guess.

�Unless there is a direct link with her knowingly and willingly supporting this (and/or sabatoging the law that ensued), than I say it's a non-issue�

What??????

All of this matters, because there is no record for Palin on the subject

And her press secretary, asked to produce any sort of a record at all to back up her statement that Palin never believed rape victims should have to pay for their own kits...didn't respond.

"And her press secretary..."

Right. So there's no record either way. Where were you going with this? Guilty until proven innocent?

How about this: it's a scandal for the town of Wasilla if and when someone turns up, as an actual fact, that a victim of sexual assault was charged for a rape kit. This hasn't happened yet. So far the only admission we've read is from the former chief of police, that insurance companies were billed when possible. No one has spelled out what happened when this wasn't possible. That's when it starts to get more interesting.

And Mnemosyne, I have no idea what your comment has to do with the excerpt you quoted.

I find it genuinely amusing that, on both sides of the political spectrum, it simply isn't enough that you disagree with the candidate for the other side. You somehow have to paint them to be some sort of inhuman monster. Until presented with solid evidence, I am just not ready to believe that Sarah Palin -- however I might disagree with her on other matters -- genuinely supported, or was even aware, of a policy of charging rape victims for any part of the costs of investigating the crimes committed against them. She certainly doesn't seem to have objected at any point after the 2000 law was passed; the objections belong solely to the chief of police.

In your desire to believe that your political opposition is made up of demons, you seem to want to believe anything.

I believe Palin's press secretary when she says Palin never wanted rape victims to pay for their own rape kits. I'm sure Mayor Palin didn't actively want that. Thought it was a shame that it had to happen, but whatyagonnado? Eyes on the prize: smaller government.

Look, the record we have is that this law was enacted to end the practice of Wasilla and possibly other towns (Knowles, governor at the time, seems to imply it was only Wasilla) charging women who filed rape charges for their own forensic tests. It was complaints from women charged for their kits in Wasilla that ultimately led to the law. We have the comments of a police chief: "In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims' insurance company when possible." By any objective reading, that statement means insurance companies didn't always pay. If the town was previously eating the other costs, that would have been an excellent time for Chief Wiggum--er, Fannon--to say so to take the edge off some of the bad PR. He didn't.

You already know this, but this isn't guilty until proven innocent. This is "show us any fact that mitigates what we already know." If Palin or any of her surrogates, including her press secretary, want to tell us that we've got the story partly wrong, no Wasilla victim was ever personally charged, Palin had thought singling out rape victims to pony up for forensics was a bad plan and did something--anything--to try to change this, and/or Palin, in direct opposition to her police chief's public statements, thought the law was a grand idea--well, they're free to actually answer media inquiries and tell us so. I can't imagine why they wouldn't want us to know such important exonerating details on such a damaging story.

Crickets chirp.

Evidence collection is not health care. Billing insurance for evidence collection kits is health insurance fraud. Under HIPAA, this is a federal felony. Since the practice created enough of a stink to require state legislation to ban, Mayor Palin must have known that insurance was being billed for evidence collection. This makes her guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud (even if she was oblivious to the felony character of the act)--also a felony. The FBI would have jurisdiction for investigating. I think Gov. Palin needs to hire a criminal defense attorney; the statute of limitations for this can be 10 years.

Interestingly, under the Violence Against Women Act sponsored by Joe Biden in 1994, state, local and Indian governments that don't provide the kits free of charge are not eligible to receive federal funding under the act. Alaska didn't qualify until it passed the 2000 law.

Who voted against that federal legislation in 1994, and voted against funding it up until last year?

John McCain.

Good lord. How much more evil/greedy can this woman get?
She can get 20 million dollars in earmarks but doesn't want to increase the money taxpayers pay law enforcement to gather evidence of a rape?
On top of that, Steve points out that charging insurance companies for evidence collection is a fraud and shortshop points out that John McCain voted against the legislation.

F-YOU, McBUSH/PALIN! What if that were YOUR daughter that was raped in Wasilla?!

Until presented with solid evidence, I am just not ready to believe that Sarah Palin -- however I might disagree with her on other matters -- genuinely supported, or was even aware, of a policy of charging rape victims for any part of the costs of investigating the crimes committed against them.

In other words, you think she was so incompetent and clueless as mayor that she had no idea that enough complaints had reached the state legislature that they ended up passing a law to force her town to pay for evidence collection from rape victims.

And, yes, making rape victims pay to have evidence of the crime against them collected so they can try to get some justice for it is evil. I have no problem saying that. It is an evil action.

(Oh, and on my earlier comment, I cut and pasted the wrong paragraph, which is why they didn't fit together.)

In other words, you think she was so incompetent and clueless as mayor that she had no idea that enough complaints had reached the state legislature that they ended up passing a law to force her town to pay for evidence collection from rape victims.

And then had no control over her police chief's public statements in reaction to the law--or ability to publicly disagree with him.

That's some "executive experience."

well check this out. Spread this around.

"Congress in 2005 passed a law requiring states to provide rape exams free of charge or reimburse victims for the costs, says Knecht, whose group supported the provision.

The Senate version of the legislation that included the rape-exam provision was sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the Democratic vice presidential nominee. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama was one of 58 co-sponsors; Republican presidential nominee John McCain was not."

Seems to me that the Palin people had better come up with something other than a "no comment" on this. The policy can only be seen as a conviction that a rape vivtim is complicit in the crime commited against her and that the policy was specifically meant to discourage the victim from making the rape complaint. If Palin was always opposed to making the victim pay, there should be some sort of record of her opposition

The HuffPost presents pretty incontroverible proof -- including copies of documents Palin signed -- that Palin approved & was instrumental in changing the policy to charge rape victims for rape kits.

From prehistoric days till today, the first purpose of government is to protect citizens from violent crime, whether committed by marauding bands or the creep in the next cave. Sarah Palin doesn't know this rock bottom basic fact about government. This makes her unfit to serve in any government capacity.

Does she approve charging the families of murder victims for the high cost of murder investigations and prosecutions? Is charging crime victims for solving their crimes be the big reform legislation she wants to bring to Washington?

But. It seems Palin has singled out a crime primarily perpetrated against women as the one type of crime for which the victim has to pay to receive justice. I'd like to know, since Wasilla saw rape kits as such a big budget item, exactly how effective the local prosecutor was in bringing rapists to justice. Does Palin's policy reflect a local prejudice that rape is a 'victimless crime,' as John McCain did when he made his oh-so hilarious joke about a woman enjoying being raped by a gorilla? Is this a Republican thing or what?

People are wondering why Palin would have made this seemingly bizarre choice, to require rape victims to shell out the cost of the rape kit.

Is it possible that she made this decision because rape kits typically include emergency contraception?