Wasilla Watch: Sarah Palin and the Rape Kits (NYT)

[jefferson_dem]

Wasilla Watch: Sarah Palin and the Rape Kits
By DOROTHY SAMUELS

Even in tough budget times, there are lines that cannot be crossed. So I was startled by this tidbit reported recently by The Associated Press: When Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, the small town began billing sexual-assault victims for the cost of rape kits and forensic exams.

Ms. Palin owes voters an explanation. What was the thinking behind cutting the measly few thousand dollars needed to cover the yearly cost of swabs, specimen containers and medical tests? Whose dumb idea was it to make assault victims and their insurance companies pay instead? Unfortunately, her campaign is shielding the candidate from the press, so Americans may still be waiting for answers on Election Day.

The rape-kit controversy is a troubling matter. The insult to rape victims is obvious. So is the sexism inherent in singling them out to foot the bill for investigating their own case. And the main result of billing rape victims is to protect their attackers by discouraging women from reporting sexual assaults.

That’s why when Senator Joseph Biden, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, drafted the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, he included provisions to make states ineligible for federal grant money if they charged rape victims for exams and the kits containing the medical supplies needed to conduct them. (Senator John McCain, Ms. Palin’s running mate, voted against Mr. Biden’s initiative, and his name has not been among the long list of co-sponsors each time the act has been renewed.)

That’s also why, when news of Wasilla’s practice of billing rape victims got around, Alaska’s State Legislature approved a bill in 2000 to stop it.

“We would never bill the victim of a burglary for fingerprinting and photographing the crime scene, or for the cost of gathering other evidence,” said Alaska’s then-governor, Tony Knowles. “Nor should we bill rape victims just because the crime scene happens to be their bodies.”

<SNIP>

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/opinion/26fri4.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

[madaboutharry]

1. I heard a member of the Wasilla city council on

Thom Hartman discussing this. He claimed it had to do with the rape kit containing a morning after pill and that Palin considered this "abortion." Does anyone have further information on this?

[hobbit709]

2. And even if it does

what gives her the right to shove her religious beliefs on a rape victim? Last I heard abortions were still legal. A morning after pill is just that-the person taking it doesn't even know yet medically if conception had taken place.
GAH I want to take these thumper types and force them to live under their own rules

[Ian_rd]

4. Which is to say ...

Palin thinks rape victims should be forced to carry and raise a rapist's child. This is who is pretty fucking close to the white house.

[tibbiit]

3. that is true, (morning after pill)

And another thing they never mention is the kits cost $1200.00!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
tib

[chatnoir]

5. It's 'only' Daily Kos but there was an diary/blog there last week that discusses this

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/17/175430/636/888/601186

WHY would Palin refuse to fund rape kits? Here's your answer. Hotlist
by hekebolos
Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:54:30 PM PDT

If you've been following the story about Sarah Palin's refusal to fund rape kits as mayor of Wasilla, especially given Alaska's status as "rape central USA", you've got to be asking yourself some questions.

For example: why on earth would she do this? What possible set of priorities could someone have to justify this behavior? Surely nobody actually would actively want to pursue a policy that would lead to rapists not getting caught just for that reason alone. There has to be something else behind it.

There is. Mind you, the evidence here is circumstantial, but there's really no other logical alternative, and the conclusion is damning.

More...