Regarding Palin and charging victims for forensic testing.

[ColbertWatcher]

Poll question: Regarding Palin and charging victims for forensic testing.

It is well-documented that the city of Wasilla, Alaska billed victims of sexual assault for forensic testing.

Yet, like a good GOPher, Palin has received the very best in obfuscation from the GOP-controlled media. Now there is an alleged "debunking" of the facts surrounding the policy practiced in her former jurisdiction. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4173645&mesg_id=4173645)

How should this discrepancy be resolved?

A. accept the GOP-controlled media's explanation without question

B. accept FactCheck.org's partial explanation as thorough

C. suspend judgement until Palin answers--for herself--what her policies were

D. find out from an insurance company if one of their customers is billed for a non-medical test would that customer have to pay for either the test or a deductable for coverage

E. It doesn't matter; the election is only a few days away and in a nation of 47 million uninsured, something like this effects so few of us

F. Other (please see my idea in reply)

[uppityperson]

1. Several. FactCheck doesn't debunk it.I have billed insurance for non-med and been denied.

I billed for missed visits as got tired of people not showing and losing the time that I could've been seeing someone else (visits take 1 to 1 1/2 hrs so it is a good chunk). Insurance denies. I don't see how or why insurance would pay for forensic evidence gathering as this is law enforcement. Even if it were all in innocence, assuming insurance would pay, when given the choice between a tax cut and helping rape victims, Palin chose tax cuts.

FactCheck doesn't debunk the story, matter of fact it confirms it, esp with the sources given.

The budget with this item gone has MsPalin's signature on it. She signed it out.

I found 1 reference in the FactCheck sources that said someone in Juneau was billed, have not been able to find any others anywhere else, though the sourced stories say there wer,e without any evidence or saying where.


Excellent blog on this issue: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/09/15/a-culture-violence-against-women-more-than-rape-kits

[ColbertWatcher]

2. "Palin chose tax cuts" that's why I included asking her as one of the choices.

She really needs to clear this up since there are so many questions.

Thank you for your insight.

[ThoughtCriminal]

3. It is repulsive even if the insurance companies pay

What other crime victims or insurance get billed to investigate the crime?
What if you don't have insurance?
Who pays the deductable, co-pays and life-time ceilings?

Nor would Palin denying knowledge cause me to reserve judgement. It was her hand-picked chief of police who implemented the policy and publicly argued AGAINST a state ban of the practice. Even if we are willing to accept that Palin (who reads ALL the newspapers) was unaware of the policy and her chief's public arguments in defense of it, what does that say about her executive skills?:

I clueless administrator who apoints imbeciles to positions of authority and does not hold them accountable.

[ColbertWatcher]

4. I agree. Also being covered insurance implies that one had to pay for coverage.

Whether an insured person pays for the kit or the coverage is hair splitting, really.

[bunkerbuster1]

10. All good points. Furthermore, blaming the police cheif destroys her "actual responsibility" line

... you know, the one from her hideous RNC speech, which she used to denigrate Obama's work as a community organizer.

That said, I want Obama's team to keep its hands off it. I want a TPM or suchlike to expose this.

[ColbertWatcher]

13. "I want a TPM or suchlike to expose this." Like us, here at DU! n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

5. The State of Alaska

Had to go so far as to pass a law to stop Palin's Wasilla from charging victims for evidence kits. Palin's Wasilla was the only town or city of any size in the entire State of Alaska to charge the victims. The legislature of Alaska's actions, taken exclusively as a result of the actions of Palin's Wasilla, tell the tale in full.
No debunking has occured. The State passed law against Palin's Wasilla in 2000, forbidding them from chraging for forensic evidence collection kits in rape cases. It is a matter of public record. The State did the right thing. Wasilla under Palin was so wrong the State had to come down on them via the law.

[ColbertWatcher]

6. So, the state of Alaska has on record proof that FactCheck.org did not debunk? n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

8. In 2000

The State of Alaska passed a law banning the charging of victims. The only city in Alaska ever to have done so was Wasilla. The law was passed just to stop Palin's Wasilla from continued chraging, after the State had asked them to stop voluntarily.
The practices of Palin's Wasilla were not seen as acceptable by the wider population of Alaska. Remember this is from her mayor days, not when she was Gov. They passed a law to stop Wasilla from charging. In 2000.
Any other details are distraction. They did it, the State objected as any decent people would. Palin's Wasilla insisted upon the practice and so a law was passed against them in 2000.
The action of the legislature was in reaction to the practices of Palin's Wasilla, again, the only town of any size in the State of Alaska to charge victims for forensic evidence collection kits.
Her law and other views are all a part of the 'let white rapists pick their child's mother program'. Make no mistake, it is that bad, and that vile.

[ColbertWatcher]

11. So, when Palin was mayor, the state over-ruled her policies. Then she became gov?

Do you know if, as governor, she reversed that ruling?

Could she?

[ThoughtCriminal]

14. It was banned by state law - the legislature would have to repeal it

Not likely - rape may be common in Alaska, but that does not mean that it's popular

[ColbertWatcher]

15. So, FactCheck.org's selective reading of the situation: thorough or technically thorough? n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

16. It was made into law and I have heard nothing about the law being changed. As Governor,

I can't think of how she could have the power to do so, without the Alaskan legislature repealing the bill.

Here is a link to the actual article in Wasilla's Frontiersman about this being signed into law.

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt

I want to add that there would be no way that Palin didn't know about this, let alone not be behind it. She signed off on the budget and had firing power over police chiefs.

Why does Governor Palin Hate Rape Victims?

[ColbertWatcher]

17. Sarah Palin: A Rapist's Best Friend. n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

20. She certainly seems to love them, doesn't she?

[ColbertWatcher]

22. Perhaps she considers it just another example of God's will? n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

23. I think she's a sociopath and her religious zealotry is intertwined with her deep mental illness.

[ColbertWatcher]

24. I'll take that as a "Yes". n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

26. LOL! Yes!

:hi:

[ColbertWatcher]

28. Hey, if God can throw hurricanes around to punish the gays ...

... what's stopping that same god from punishing harlots with rape?

Where's my rod? There's kids on my lawn!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

29. And when a man commits incest with his 15 year old daughter and she gets pregnant,

God bless him for bringing another youngin' into the world.

[ColbertWatcher]

30. Yes, and then He punishes the little slut for tempting her father like that.

Who bought her those clothes anyway?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

31. Doncha jist love Palin's God?

[ColbertWatcher]

32. Pick one: "You betcha!" "In what respect, Charlie?" n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

33. lol! I was waiting for You Betcha!

:rofl:

As a little side note, my orange kitty's name is Charley. After "In what respect Charley" was rolled out, for about a week after that, everytime I had to call my kitty I would crack up!!!!

[ColbertWatcher]

34. Please tell me the other ones aren't named Track and Trig! n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

35. Nah, I've never been one to name either pets or kids "unusual" names.

My black kitty is Jack and my gray is Amy. But it is tempting to name my next pet, Truck ;)

:rofl:

[Enthusiast]

7. I answered "F"

because I have found the explanation that portrays conservative fundy lying scum in the worst light is invariably the most accurate. :patriot:

[ColbertWatcher]

12. LOL! Good choice! Excellent observation! n/t

[bunkerbuster1]

9. Like many, I prefer "D"--get the dollars and cents involved, and nail her.

And let her pass the buck to her police chief, so she can officially flush her claims of having held "actual responsibility" as a Mayor, right down the toilet.

[ColbertWatcher]

18. Can it be done in 29 days!? n/t

[philosophie_en_rose]

19. Other: Review the evidence and realize she is directly responsible.

Here's a link to a previous post with links to Wasilla budgets and articles: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4173645&mesg_id=4174487

It started on her watch, until the state forcibly prevented the practice. How is it not her fault?

[ColbertWatcher]

21. FactCheck.org's "findings" implies she's not culpable. n/t

[philosophie_en_rose]

25. No it doesn't.

It states that victims were charged, but that the level of Palin's knowledge is not clear to factchecker.org. It bases its opinion on three articles, which do not include the actual budgets or many other articles.

As many other articles and the actual budgets (scanned online for your convenience) demonstrate, she did know. She is directly culpable for Wasilla's budget, which she personally approved (see her handwriting all over the proposed budgets - also scanned online) and read line-by-line.

The alternative is that she didn't know, which - even if true (contrary to the budgets with her signature on them) - it would make her an insanely ignorant and uninformed administrator. That would still make her culpable. Her campaign's insistence that she didn't know is stupid beyond belief.

Regardless of how it happened, she was in charge when the person she went out of her way to appoint started to charge victims. She didn't dispute her administration's (through the police chief's) public statements that the "taxpayer" shouldn't have to pay for police investigations. Her watch; her fault. It's not that hard to understand. How in the world is she not culpable? She doesn't have to personally hand the victim a bill to be complicit with a scheme to pass law enforcement costs to victims.

Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone is taking that article as a "debunking," since it doesn't actually debunk anything. It doesn't address any of the documentation, interviews, and statements that other articles have discussed. Wasilla went from spending almost it's entire $4000+ budget on testing to $152. Under Palin's leadership, Wasilla didn't pay for a single rape kit (that budget line covers all testing and rape kits cost more than $152).

[ColbertWatcher]

27. So, in your reading, FactCheck.org DID NOT debunk anything? n/t