The Palin Rape Kit Circus Continues
We have fresh information regarding poorly-researched claims made in the media (including CNN, US News & World Report, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, the Associated Press, and literally dozens of other "professional media"
that Sarah Palin presided over a Wasilla, AK city government that charged rape victims for the forensic medical examinations designed to collected physical evidence of sexual assaults. With very little variation from one media source to the next, media accounts attempted to portray Palin as a callous monster out to re-abuse victims.
The Wasilla PD can find no evidence that victims were billed for rape kits. The only other city government entity (the Finance Department) that would possibly have such information only keeps billing records for six years, and is therefore of little use, as it no longer keeps records that would have been created under Palin's administration. Outside of Wasilla, however, other government officials and experts have testified that there were no known instances of rape victims being bill for examinations, and the best evidence of this may be the minutes of the committee that helped draft the state legislation. On March 6, 2000, Del Smith, the Deputy Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Public Safety, testified in support of HB 270 (the bill outlawing the billing of rape kits) and the minutes noted:
I found no documents within the police department showing sexual assault victims were billed for forensic exams. Nor have I been able to find any documentation regarding a decision to bill those victims. Case reports don't contain financial billing information. Financial records are retained by the Finance Department, and the Finance Director was unable to find any records of billing within records still being held.
Testifying in front of the same committee, Lauree Hugonin, Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA) noted that "billings have not come from police agencies but have come from hospitals." Trisha Gentle, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault noted that police departments were willing to pay for the exams, but that it was an internal decision on the part of the hospital as to who pays the hospital bill. Despite the spin recently being applied by astroturfing Obama supporters, there was never any evidence that victims were being charged by any police departments including Wasilla's Police Department under Palin. Testimony instead indicates it was callous hospitals that attempted to bill victims on rare occasions of insensitivity. It is also true that protective mechanisms were in place in Alaska that would have picked up the cost of such kits, even if State law had not changed in 2000. The State of Alaska Violent Crimes Compensation Board (VCCB) was "was established in 1971 by the Alaskan Legislature to help bring financial relief to innocent victims of violent crimes in Alaska." Among the things the VCCB would pay for are the medical bills of victims of violent crimes (including sexual assaults), counseling, and transportation to medical and counseling services. A former worker with VCCB notes via email:
He commented that he does not think that a victim ought to even see a bill related to sexual assault whether it is on their insurance form or not. He emphasized that a police agency investigating a crime should pay because that is the cost of doing business in the collection of evidence no matter what the crime; he does not know of any police agency that has requested payment.
Despite claims to the contrary, there is no record that the Wasilla Police Department ever charged rape victims under Sarah Palin's leadership, nor were State law enforcement or sexual assault victim's advocates aware of such attempts anywhere in Alaska as the proposed bill was being discussed. As committee minutes show, the offenders experts were worried about were hospitals, not police, and not Sarah Palin.
Rape kits and other medical expenses of this type would be paid by the VCCB, 100% guaranteed. The City of Wasilla could have technically 'charged' the victim but even if they did, the VCCB would have paid the bill in full. I still know the a few of the Board members and the supervisor and I can tell you that they are very liberal with the way that they pay the victims bills.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:05 PM
Comments
1
Too late, The Deciders(tm) have spoken.
Sarah Palin left penniless rape victims in her wake. So let it be written, so let it be done.
Sarah Palin left penniless rape victims in her wake. So let it be written, so let it be done.
Posted by: Techie at September 22, 2008 09:07 PM (vcDkn)
2
This stuff isn't true--but if it were, why would it be so horrible?
I've never raped anybody in my life. Why do I have to pay for rape? Just because the left's view of kindness is "bleed it out of the taxpayers"?
I've never raped anybody in my life. Why do I have to pay for rape? Just because the left's view of kindness is "bleed it out of the taxpayers"?
Posted by: Trish at September 22, 2008 09:27 PM (eTo1O)
3
Good grief! Will these liberal-generated false allegations continue forever? When is someone going to address these libtards and call them to account for these continual terrible lies? The Dems have demonstrated just how disgusting they really are!
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at September 22, 2008 09:33 PM (Qv1xF)
4
So let me get this straight. Local municipalities in Alaska amy or may not have been charging rape victims for the rape exam kit. Apparently there were more than just Wasilla potentially doing this which prompted the state legislature to ban the practice.
So of there were multiple jurisdictions in Alaska doing this WHY IS IT SARAH PALIN'S FAULT IF WASILLA WAS DOING IT TOO?
And my adult daughter who deals with several fire/rescue services throughout the country advises me that this is not an uncommon practice in the rest of the country either.
WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THIS COUNTRY! HAS EVERYONE GONE NUTS? We can't talk about Obama and his hate-America church or his payoff money from Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae, or his buddy Bill Ayers, or his angry wife or we are racists, but we can criticise Palin for being mayor of Wasilla when they MIGHT have been doing something which was apparently a fairly common practice throughout Alaska, common enough that the freaking legislature took steps to prevent the practice!
Looney Toones.
So of there were multiple jurisdictions in Alaska doing this WHY IS IT SARAH PALIN'S FAULT IF WASILLA WAS DOING IT TOO?
And my adult daughter who deals with several fire/rescue services throughout the country advises me that this is not an uncommon practice in the rest of the country either.
WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THIS COUNTRY! HAS EVERYONE GONE NUTS? We can't talk about Obama and his hate-America church or his payoff money from Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae, or his buddy Bill Ayers, or his angry wife or we are racists, but we can criticise Palin for being mayor of Wasilla when they MIGHT have been doing something which was apparently a fairly common practice throughout Alaska, common enough that the freaking legislature took steps to prevent the practice!
Looney Toones.
Posted by: John Steele at September 22, 2008 09:38 PM (UtsE7)
5
B..b..b..bbbut….there’s a really snarky Tom Tomorrow anim that says it’s true! What am I going to believe, some stupid news reports and boring facts or this hip, cool and edgy leftwing agitprop?!?
Posted by: H Smith at September 22, 2008 09:39 PM (/4j+6)
6
Well, now, isn't this interesting? Obama's state of ILLINOIS charges victims for rape kits! Who knew?
http://www.ilga.gov/
410 ILCS 70/7) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 87‑7)
Sec. 7. Charges and reimbursement.
(a) When any ambulance provider furnishes transportation, hospital provides hospital emergency services and forensic services, hospital or health care professional or laboratory provides follow‑up healthcare, or pharmacy dispenses prescribed medications to any sexual assault survivor, as defined by the Department of Healthcare and Family Services, who is neither eligible to receive such services under the Illinois Public Aid Code [my emphasis]NOR COVERED AS TO SUCH SERVICES BY A POLICY OF INSURANCE[/my emphasis] the ambulance provider, hospital, health care professional, or laboratory shall furnish such services to that person without charge and shall be entitled to be reimbursed for its billed charges in providing such services by the Illinois Sexual Assault Emergency Treatment Program under the Department of Healthcare and Family Services.
So, in plain English - if you have insurance, YOUR INSURANCE IS CHARGED FOR THE RAPE KIT. Just like Chief Fannon said was his practice in Wasilla, *if* he couldn't charge the perp.
Want a little corroboration about what's going on in Illinois? Check out this from US News and World Report from February of THIS year:
"[F]eedback from the field indicates that sexual assault victims are still being billed." Knecht says she's recently heard from caseworkers in Illinois, Georgia, and Arkansas reporting that rape victims continue to be charged for their forensic exams.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-health-and-money/2008/2/21/rape-victims-can-be-hurt-financially-too.html
As Homer Simpson would say....D'OH!
http://www.ilga.gov/
410 ILCS 70/7) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 87‑7)
Sec. 7. Charges and reimbursement.
(a) When any ambulance provider furnishes transportation, hospital provides hospital emergency services and forensic services, hospital or health care professional or laboratory provides follow‑up healthcare, or pharmacy dispenses prescribed medications to any sexual assault survivor, as defined by the Department of Healthcare and Family Services, who is neither eligible to receive such services under the Illinois Public Aid Code [my emphasis]NOR COVERED AS TO SUCH SERVICES BY A POLICY OF INSURANCE[/my emphasis] the ambulance provider, hospital, health care professional, or laboratory shall furnish such services to that person without charge and shall be entitled to be reimbursed for its billed charges in providing such services by the Illinois Sexual Assault Emergency Treatment Program under the Department of Healthcare and Family Services.
So, in plain English - if you have insurance, YOUR INSURANCE IS CHARGED FOR THE RAPE KIT. Just like Chief Fannon said was his practice in Wasilla, *if* he couldn't charge the perp.
Want a little corroboration about what's going on in Illinois? Check out this from US News and World Report from February of THIS year:
"[F]eedback from the field indicates that sexual assault victims are still being billed." Knecht says she's recently heard from caseworkers in Illinois, Georgia, and Arkansas reporting that rape victims continue to be charged for their forensic exams.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-health-and-money/2008/2/21/rape-victims-can-be-hurt-financially-too.html
As Homer Simpson would say....D'OH!
Posted by: vox at September 22, 2008 09:41 PM (hvN4M)
7
This is just bloody unfortunate on so many levels.
If indeed, the city of Wasilla under Sarah Palin had been in the habit of billing sexual assault victims for the gathering of forensic evidence, this would have been an atrocious practice. The question deserved to be asked.
Once asked, however, there appears to be ample evidence that the charge has no merit, so the story should have died right away. Asked. Answered. Case closed. At the very least the matter does not appear to be nearly so simple and scandalous as it initially seemed, which should prompt honest-minded people to turn down the temperature on the issue.
But that's not the way it happened. The meme was dropped in the stream, and floated free, only to get swept up by a lumbering leviathan of partisan smear-mongering (kinda like the whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing...only supercharged by an irresponsible, Left-leaning media). Any attempt to highlight contradictory evidence is viewed as suspect partisanship from the other side. The truth is swallowed up like hapless krill.
I don't care how emotionally satisfying it would be for some to have Obama be POTUS; if shenanigans like these are what it takes to have that occur, then I submit that such a poisoned tree could not help but yield the kind of fruit that Vlad Putin likes to send to uppity reporters...
If indeed, the city of Wasilla under Sarah Palin had been in the habit of billing sexual assault victims for the gathering of forensic evidence, this would have been an atrocious practice. The question deserved to be asked.
Once asked, however, there appears to be ample evidence that the charge has no merit, so the story should have died right away. Asked. Answered. Case closed. At the very least the matter does not appear to be nearly so simple and scandalous as it initially seemed, which should prompt honest-minded people to turn down the temperature on the issue.
But that's not the way it happened. The meme was dropped in the stream, and floated free, only to get swept up by a lumbering leviathan of partisan smear-mongering (kinda like the whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing...only supercharged by an irresponsible, Left-leaning media). Any attempt to highlight contradictory evidence is viewed as suspect partisanship from the other side. The truth is swallowed up like hapless krill.
I don't care how emotionally satisfying it would be for some to have Obama be POTUS; if shenanigans like these are what it takes to have that occur, then I submit that such a poisoned tree could not help but yield the kind of fruit that Vlad Putin likes to send to uppity reporters...
Posted by: Noocyte at September 22, 2008 09:58 PM (Y0ehO)
8
Real dumb question, but were there any rapes in Wasilla before Sarah Palin became mayor? Was it the policy of the town to charge for rape kits then?
It seems to me that with a reported 40-50 sexual assaults in the town during her 4-year tenure, even if every one of those crimes had required a rape kit, it's unlikely that the mayor would become involved in the nuts-and-bolts of a police investigation matter. If no citizens of the town complained to her or the city council about the "disgraceful" practice of charging for rape kits, it's hardly likely that she would have even known about it.
Unless someone comes up with some minutes of the city council meetings where this was discussed, it's a non-issue. We know now there was a state agency that reimbursed cities and towns for the cost of these kits during the time Ms. Palin was mayor. If someone got raped and then had to pay for the rape kit, she (or he!) should contact the State of Alaska Violent Crimes Compensation Board and ask for reimbursement.
It seems to me that with a reported 40-50 sexual assaults in the town during her 4-year tenure, even if every one of those crimes had required a rape kit, it's unlikely that the mayor would become involved in the nuts-and-bolts of a police investigation matter. If no citizens of the town complained to her or the city council about the "disgraceful" practice of charging for rape kits, it's hardly likely that she would have even known about it.
Unless someone comes up with some minutes of the city council meetings where this was discussed, it's a non-issue. We know now there was a state agency that reimbursed cities and towns for the cost of these kits during the time Ms. Palin was mayor. If someone got raped and then had to pay for the rape kit, she (or he!) should contact the State of Alaska Violent Crimes Compensation Board and ask for reimbursement.
Posted by: Orion at September 22, 2008 10:00 PM (3Pqk1)
9
Well said, Noocyte. Unfortunately, we're dealing with folks who collectively think like Nigel Tufnel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d54UU-fPIsY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d54UU-fPIsY
Posted by: MarkJ at September 22, 2008 10:26 PM (IKzfP)
10
vox--
Thanks for pointing that out. Obama was in the Illinois state senate, and could have done something about that statute, but of course his only duty there was to be "present."
Thanks for pointing that out. Obama was in the Illinois state senate, and could have done something about that statute, but of course his only duty there was to be "present."
Posted by: Trish at September 22, 2008 10:44 PM (eTo1O)
11
As a loyal Obama supporter, I want to thank you for continuing discussion of this story. The more you claim there is no evidence, the more the MSM will be forced to look into it and talk about it. As mentioned in the previous post, there several first-hand accounts of victims being charged for the kits from articles published in 2000 at the time of the bill's passage. The more you offer denials, the more likely it is for the MSM to do the simple work of reaching out to one of the victims, and going to the local Wasilla hospitals (whose records for the period will be intact) to get rock solid proof.
So please, if possible, try to post about this as much as possible and send links to like minded wingnut bloggers about it. Or talk about the economy, either one is good for us.
So please, if possible, try to post about this as much as possible and send links to like minded wingnut bloggers about it. Or talk about the economy, either one is good for us.
Posted by: loyaldem at September 22, 2008 10:58 PM (/U1sH)
12
Going to the hospital and getting proof that the hospital billed the victim ... how is this proof that the police billed the victim?
(It really is beginning to look like hospital bills everywhere, charge the patient for everything and anything, even for removing his leg when they didn't, males for giving birth, women for prostate removals ... men do get breast cancer, though.)
(It really is beginning to look like hospital bills everywhere, charge the patient for everything and anything, even for removing his leg when they didn't, males for giving birth, women for prostate removals ... men do get breast cancer, though.)
Posted by: htom at September 22, 2008 11:07 PM (XK5dj)
13
The rape kit is a hospital procedure, and thus is billed by the hospital. In cases where the investigating agency has its own internal lab, they would bear the cost or do the blling - Wasilla did not have its own lab. I would be surprised if you can find another locality where the cost wasn't billed by the hospital to the investigating agency.
Here is a bit more info on the whole controversy (feel free to ignore since the source is "in the tank")
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html
Here is a bit more info on the whole controversy (feel free to ignore since the source is "in the tank")
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html
Posted by: loyaldem at September 22, 2008 11:15 PM (/U1sH)
14
feel free to ignore since the source is "in the tank" We ignore the source not because they are in the tank, rather because the HuffingtonPost is dishonest.
Posted by: bains at September 22, 2008 11:36 PM (AgNu2)
15
Loyal Dem, you are kidding right?
Alperin-Sheriff claims in one graph that "the policy was put in place as a direct result of Palin's leadership." and two graph's later admits that he doesn't know for sure if the previous mayor had such a program. "Mayor Stein told OffTheBus that he didn't 'think victims were billed while [he] was mayor,' but that he wasn't certain."
He then tried to get the current police chief to comment and failed.
I succeeded.
As for your statement that "The rape kit is a hospital procedure, and thus is billed by the hospital," the experts that testified in front of the legislature couldn't agree more. They maintain that hospitals are responsible for the few episodes of billing that occurred, not police departments, including Palin's.
Game over.
Now, if you hurry back to Huffington Post, I hear Naomi Wolf is dispensing advice on what to wear during the coming police state.
Alperin-Sheriff claims in one graph that "the policy was put in place as a direct result of Palin's leadership." and two graph's later admits that he doesn't know for sure if the previous mayor had such a program. "Mayor Stein told OffTheBus that he didn't 'think victims were billed while [he] was mayor,' but that he wasn't certain."
He then tried to get the current police chief to comment and failed.
I succeeded.
As for your statement that "The rape kit is a hospital procedure, and thus is billed by the hospital," the experts that testified in front of the legislature couldn't agree more. They maintain that hospitals are responsible for the few episodes of billing that occurred, not police departments, including Palin's.
Game over.
Now, if you hurry back to Huffington Post, I hear Naomi Wolf is dispensing advice on what to wear during the coming police state.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 22, 2008 11:37 PM (HcgFD)
16
Hey Trish, you idiot.
A rape kit is an evidence-collecting test used in a police investigation. Of course the taxpayer should pay for it, it's part of the cost of having a police department. Would you ask burglary victims to pay for the police to dust for fingerprints? Would you ask the family of a murder victim to pay for the police to investigate the homicide? Of course not. So why do you think a rape victim should pay for the investigation of that crime? Personally, I'm relieved that the left-wing MSM got this one so horribly wrong, but please don't tell me that victims should have to start paying for the police to investigate crimes against them. I mean, I'm all for small government, but that's just ridiculous.
A rape kit is an evidence-collecting test used in a police investigation. Of course the taxpayer should pay for it, it's part of the cost of having a police department. Would you ask burglary victims to pay for the police to dust for fingerprints? Would you ask the family of a murder victim to pay for the police to investigate the homicide? Of course not. So why do you think a rape victim should pay for the investigation of that crime? Personally, I'm relieved that the left-wing MSM got this one so horribly wrong, but please don't tell me that victims should have to start paying for the police to investigate crimes against them. I mean, I'm all for small government, but that's just ridiculous.
Posted by: jms2008 at September 22, 2008 11:43 PM (0cJAN)
17
Sarah Palin obviously put this procedure in place because she is an evil chillbilly godbothering sex traitor who refuses to have abortions and doesn't want you to have them either even if you are raped. She even hates polar bears!
What are skidmark and her fellow Obamatards going to do except move on to the next astroturfed Palin smear. There are so many to choose from.
Morons
What are skidmark and her fellow Obamatards going to do except move on to the next astroturfed Palin smear. There are so many to choose from.
Morons
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 22, 2008 11:46 PM (i/fLn)
18
It does seem like this is getting pinned as if Palin enacted the law herself, but I don't understand how you say that there is no evidence rape victims where ever charged by any police departments. 1st of all, "vox"posta in the comments that they do this in Illinois right now.
Secondly, Alaska introduced legislation to stop the practice of charging rape victims. Do you think they did that just for kicks?
Sad.
Secondly, Alaska introduced legislation to stop the practice of charging rape victims. Do you think they did that just for kicks?
Sad.
Posted by: Ken at September 23, 2008 12:09 AM (XBTpu)
19
hey trish - want to hear something mind-blowingly funny? that illinois bill that states victims of rape with insurance are responsible for the rape kit charge was co-sponsored by...wait for it...wait for it....barack obama. not kidding.
hey jms2008 - by your logic then, should the Wasilla PD foot the bill for injuries someone gets in a bar fight? or injuries received from a drunk driver? of course not. lets not fool ourselves into thinking the whole notion of towns paying for rape kits isn't what it what it really is....political correctness. i mean, if the PD is going to pay for a rape kit, why the heck wouldn't they pay to fix someone's broken arm received fending off a mugger?
loyaldem, I read that article on the HuffPo by Jacob Alperin-Sheriff...maybe you can answer the question I emailed him, but has thus far refused to answer...he claims that Palin is directly responsible for "slashing" (his words) the budget for rape kits in Wasilla because...are your ready for this? He looked up the actual budgets of the PD on the Wasilla web site, and because there is an account called "contingency funds" that was budgeted in 1998 for $3K and in 1999 for $1K that this is de facto PROOF Palin both authorized charging victims for rape kits and CUT the PD's budget so they couldn't buy any themselves.
Yes, this is a how a HuffPO blogger's mind works....find a line item on a budget you don't recognize or even know what it's for, ASSUME it must be for rape kits, and then when that same line item is LESS the following year, ASSUME the mayor decided to start charging victims for rape kits.
Until Alperin-Sheriff discloses how he knows that the "contingency fund" was used for rape kits in the Wasilla PD, EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERYTHING he's written is worthless.
hey jms2008 - by your logic then, should the Wasilla PD foot the bill for injuries someone gets in a bar fight? or injuries received from a drunk driver? of course not. lets not fool ourselves into thinking the whole notion of towns paying for rape kits isn't what it what it really is....political correctness. i mean, if the PD is going to pay for a rape kit, why the heck wouldn't they pay to fix someone's broken arm received fending off a mugger?
loyaldem, I read that article on the HuffPo by Jacob Alperin-Sheriff...maybe you can answer the question I emailed him, but has thus far refused to answer...he claims that Palin is directly responsible for "slashing" (his words) the budget for rape kits in Wasilla because...are your ready for this? He looked up the actual budgets of the PD on the Wasilla web site, and because there is an account called "contingency funds" that was budgeted in 1998 for $3K and in 1999 for $1K that this is de facto PROOF Palin both authorized charging victims for rape kits and CUT the PD's budget so they couldn't buy any themselves.
Yes, this is a how a HuffPO blogger's mind works....find a line item on a budget you don't recognize or even know what it's for, ASSUME it must be for rape kits, and then when that same line item is LESS the following year, ASSUME the mayor decided to start charging victims for rape kits.
Until Alperin-Sheriff discloses how he knows that the "contingency fund" was used for rape kits in the Wasilla PD, EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERYTHING he's written is worthless.
Posted by: vox at September 23, 2008 12:18 AM (2SqLX)
20
Curiously, this subject does bring up a possible debate point. The 'story' is that victims are being billed for 'police work'. Granted, I've overstated things with that statement since it is so far limited to rape kits only. However, jms2008 brings up the rest of 'police work' with the following: A rape kit is an evidence-collecting test used in a police investigation. Of course the taxpayer should pay for it, it's part of the cost of having a police department. Would you ask burglary victims to pay for the police to dust for fingerprints? Would you ask the family of a murder victim to pay for the police to investigate the homicide? Of course not.
While I completely agree that victims should NOT be charged for 'police work', I do think someone should. I propose charging the convicted criminals for the costs associate with their convictions. Think about it. Not only would those convicted be potentially hit with jail time, they would also have to pay restitution to the 'state'.
There is, of course, a downside to this idea. The 'state' could simply start arresting everyone they could, rig the trials, and make boatloads of cash for themselves. So, with that caveat already stated, what downside is there? I'm curious what sort of responses this idea gets.
While I completely agree that victims should NOT be charged for 'police work', I do think someone should. I propose charging the convicted criminals for the costs associate with their convictions. Think about it. Not only would those convicted be potentially hit with jail time, they would also have to pay restitution to the 'state'.
There is, of course, a downside to this idea. The 'state' could simply start arresting everyone they could, rig the trials, and make boatloads of cash for themselves. So, with that caveat already stated, what downside is there? I'm curious what sort of responses this idea gets.
Posted by: Mark at September 23, 2008 12:21 AM (w/olL)
21
Pulled some facts off the HuffPo's site. Didn't enjoy going there because the few times I have, I've felt like I need to clean myself.
Anyway, here's what I have.
Checking the budget confirmed former Chief Stambaugh's claim. He had included a contingency of $15,000 in his budget for the department's 1st year of existence (1993-1994), $5,000 for 1994-1995 and 1995-1996, and $13,000 for his final year as police chief in 1996-1997, spending $11,625.
Duwayne Charles Fannon, his replacement, halved the budget request in 1997-1998, with a request of $7,298, spending $3,454. However, it seems he began the "victim pays" policy in the 1998-1999 fiscal year. That year, he requested $3,000 but spent only $205. This data can be found in the Document Central section of Wasilla's website.
So, the time frame is 1996-2000
Chief Stambaugh paid out of his budget until the end of the fiscal year for 1997.
Chief Fannon spent 3,454 for 1997-1998. For 98-99 he still requested 3,000 but only spent 205. The fiscal year generally ends in Oct. We know in the beginning of 2000 there are no records of any charges billed to rape victims during or after that period.
So, the only year possible is 1998-99. There is nothing proving the Police Dept itself billed victims.
Only a statement given by HuffPo that it "seems" like it started.
Anyway, here's what I have.
Checking the budget confirmed former Chief Stambaugh's claim. He had included a contingency of $15,000 in his budget for the department's 1st year of existence (1993-1994), $5,000 for 1994-1995 and 1995-1996, and $13,000 for his final year as police chief in 1996-1997, spending $11,625.
Duwayne Charles Fannon, his replacement, halved the budget request in 1997-1998, with a request of $7,298, spending $3,454. However, it seems he began the "victim pays" policy in the 1998-1999 fiscal year. That year, he requested $3,000 but spent only $205. This data can be found in the Document Central section of Wasilla's website.
So, the time frame is 1996-2000
Chief Stambaugh paid out of his budget until the end of the fiscal year for 1997.
Chief Fannon spent 3,454 for 1997-1998. For 98-99 he still requested 3,000 but only spent 205. The fiscal year generally ends in Oct. We know in the beginning of 2000 there are no records of any charges billed to rape victims during or after that period.
So, the only year possible is 1998-99. There is nothing proving the Police Dept itself billed victims.
Only a statement given by HuffPo that it "seems" like it started.
Posted by: Bryan at September 23, 2008 12:29 AM (zTtY+)
22
The great thing is that the more they do this trash, the solider the right stands behind her. Insane.
Posted by: cmblake6 at September 23, 2008 12:32 AM (QSVQf)
23
Ken, the sum total of the "evidence" of this complete SMEAR of Sarah is one line in an article written in 2000 by a reporter for the Frontiersman, the Wasilla Newspaper, that interpreted Police Chief Fannon's statement "we try to charge insurance companies or the perpetrator (for the rape kit)" as meaning that Mayor Palin charged victims for rape kits.
Lets look at the actual evidence we DO know:
Thus far, former Chief Fannon refuses to comment further or clarify his remarks about the 2000 story - he's refused all interviews.
The City of Wasilla has done a search of their financial records going back 6 years - they can find NO record of ANYONE ever being charged for a rape kit.
The current Police Chief, Angela Long, has done a search of case files and can find NO records of any victims of rape being charged for rape kits.
No one can find a single witness, victim, story, complaint, letter - ANYTHING - that proves ANYONE was ever charged for a rape kit while Palin was mayor.
Mayor Palin is on record saying she absolutely, categorically would NEVER support charging a victim for a rape kit.
It seems clear, based on the evidence, to continue to accuse Palin of having knowledge of or approving of the policy of charging for rape kits is simply perpetrating a factless SMEAR.
Lets look at the actual evidence we DO know:
Thus far, former Chief Fannon refuses to comment further or clarify his remarks about the 2000 story - he's refused all interviews.
The City of Wasilla has done a search of their financial records going back 6 years - they can find NO record of ANYONE ever being charged for a rape kit.
The current Police Chief, Angela Long, has done a search of case files and can find NO records of any victims of rape being charged for rape kits.
No one can find a single witness, victim, story, complaint, letter - ANYTHING - that proves ANYONE was ever charged for a rape kit while Palin was mayor.
Mayor Palin is on record saying she absolutely, categorically would NEVER support charging a victim for a rape kit.
It seems clear, based on the evidence, to continue to accuse Palin of having knowledge of or approving of the policy of charging for rape kits is simply perpetrating a factless SMEAR.
Posted by: vox at September 23, 2008 12:33 AM (2SqLX)
24
Beautiful job, Vox. I borrowed your reference to Illinois law and practice to post over at Op-Edna, which can only be referred to as the belly of the beast.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at September 23, 2008 12:40 AM (p2H2j)
25
Good. I'm glad that it's been clarified that hospitals were the one's dunning patients for forensic tests, and that Wasilla would have arranged payment under victims funds.
I'm sorry any woman would be billed for a hugely expensive evidence collection procedure, done only to catch and convict a criminal, not to provide any direct medical benefit to the patient.
I'm sorry any woman would be billed for a hugely expensive evidence collection procedure, done only to catch and convict a criminal, not to provide any direct medical benefit to the patient.
Posted by: SarahW at September 23, 2008 12:43 AM (7sl9X)
26
Bryan, it boggles any semblence of reason that the HuffPO blogger you cite (who I've emailed...no response so far) would SMEAR a sitting governor and vice presidential candidate with this vile, despicable accusation about charging victims for rape kits - SOLELY on the basis that the Wasilla PD's budget for the contingency fund declined over a period of two years. That's IT. That is the sum total of non-existant proof he's using to slime a governor with an 80% approval rating.
Well, I did a little digging of my own. Follow me through this....in August of 2000 the Alaskan state legislature signed a law that required the investigating law enforcement agency to assume the cost of any rape kits need to collect evidence following a rape. If, as the HuffPO blogger suggests, the contingency fund was used previously for rape kits, shouldn't that budget have been INCREASED in 2001, following the signing of the law in 2000? Guess what? It didn't. The budget for that account was halved again, from $1000 to $500. Clearly, the "contingency fund" was NOT used previously to buy rape kits.
So much for HuffPO "logic."
Well, I did a little digging of my own. Follow me through this....in August of 2000 the Alaskan state legislature signed a law that required the investigating law enforcement agency to assume the cost of any rape kits need to collect evidence following a rape. If, as the HuffPO blogger suggests, the contingency fund was used previously for rape kits, shouldn't that budget have been INCREASED in 2001, following the signing of the law in 2000? Guess what? It didn't. The budget for that account was halved again, from $1000 to $500. Clearly, the "contingency fund" was NOT used previously to buy rape kits.
So much for HuffPO "logic."
Posted by: vox at September 23, 2008 12:51 AM (2SqLX)
27
Another lie debunked. Yawn.
This is Psychology 101, folks, and don't think the Democrats don't know that. You throw out lies and even if they're refuted, the lie still has a power greater than that of the refutation. Just as Dems are incredulous that some people still think that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, these lies and smears on Palin *will* stick, despite the fact that they are lies and smears.
What should we do? Well, what can we do? We cannot wallow in the mud with these pigs, because we are better men. All we can do is fight for our side (fairly) and hope that the better angels of the American public's nature win out. We shall see.
This is Psychology 101, folks, and don't think the Democrats don't know that. You throw out lies and even if they're refuted, the lie still has a power greater than that of the refutation. Just as Dems are incredulous that some people still think that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, these lies and smears on Palin *will* stick, despite the fact that they are lies and smears.
What should we do? Well, what can we do? We cannot wallow in the mud with these pigs, because we are better men. All we can do is fight for our side (fairly) and hope that the better angels of the American public's nature win out. We shall see.
Posted by: Joe C at September 23, 2008 04:20 AM (3kd2U)
28
Still waiting for the retractions and apologies to Gov. Palin from SKYLARK and MAGIC DOG, from the other post on this smear.
I'm not holding my breath...
I'm not holding my breath...
Posted by: Conservative CBU at September 23, 2008 05:33 AM (M+Vfm)
29
Here's what I posted at Harry's Place when he repeated the allegation on the 14th:
North Carolina charged rape victims (average 3000 per year) for their rape kits up until a month ago (link). The last two governors of North Carolina have been two-term Democrats and have governed the state for 15 1/2 years between them.
North Carolina charged rape victims (average 3000 per year) for their rape kits up until a month ago (link). The last two governors of North Carolina have been two-term Democrats and have governed the state for 15 1/2 years between them.
Posted by: Dr Weevil at September 23, 2008 05:54 AM (vAs5q)
30
Facts, schmacts. The truth is Sarah Palin is an evil person, even though nobody has produced any credible evidence. You know she's evil because if she were not, then the left wouldn't be trying so hard to smear her.
QEfrickin'D, man.
And why has nobody asked about this Wasilla Police Chief? Angela Long? Funny first name, it would not surprise me at all if she were of the same, you know, gender as this Palin creature. That's right, another womyn hating misogynist.
Regardless, I am cheered to see the left rallying so enthusiastically to the colors here. Somebody's got to stand up to this uppity bitch who thinks she can do a man's job. Keep at it, lefties, the stakes are too high to permit Palin to get away with it! Ends, means, you know the rest.
QEfrickin'D, man.
And why has nobody asked about this Wasilla Police Chief? Angela Long? Funny first name, it would not surprise me at all if she were of the same, you know, gender as this Palin creature. That's right, another womyn hating misogynist.
Regardless, I am cheered to see the left rallying so enthusiastically to the colors here. Somebody's got to stand up to this uppity bitch who thinks she can do a man's job. Keep at it, lefties, the stakes are too high to permit Palin to get away with it! Ends, means, you know the rest.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 23, 2008 06:02 AM (Vcyz0)
31
Evidence? Since when did evidence need to exist before the left wing Bolsheviks parroted it?
Posted by: Dennis D at September 23, 2008 06:17 AM (EbvWp)
32
McCain needs to generically blame Obama for these lies and attacks just as Obama has blamed McCain .
Posted by: Dennis D at September 23, 2008 06:18 AM (EbvWp)
33
http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors/
#72. No, she didn’t try to charge rape victims personally for rape kits. This is one of those complicated ones with a tiny hint of truth behind it. First, the Chief of Police in Wasilla (not Palin) did apparently have a policy of asking a victim’s health insurance to pay for the rape kit as part of the ER visit. This, it turns out, is policy in a number of states, including Missouri and North Carolina. Second, the way this became an issue was after the then-governor of Alaska signed a bill forbidding it; this law was signed before Palin was Governor and no one tried to reverse it while she was Governor. Third, what the CoP in Wasilla wanted to do was charge the perpetrator as part of restitution.
http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors/
#72. No, she didn’t try to charge rape victims personally for rape kits. This is one of those complicated ones with a tiny hint of truth behind it. First, the Chief of Police in Wasilla (not Palin) did apparently have a policy of asking a victim’s health insurance to pay for the rape kit as part of the ER visit. This, it turns out, is policy in a number of states, including Missouri and North Carolina. Second, the way this became an issue was after the then-governor of Alaska signed a bill forbidding it; this law was signed before Palin was Governor and no one tried to reverse it while she was Governor. Third, what the CoP in Wasilla wanted to do was charge the perpetrator as part of restitution.
Posted by: Dave C at September 23, 2008 07:37 AM (Ri7nY)
34
Still waiting for the retractions and apologies to Gov. Palin from SKYLARK and MAGIC DOG
That will never happen, for two reasons:
(1). From previous experience, I can tell you that Skylark is incapable of ever admitting defeat, and will keep trolling merrily away, and;
(2). Knowing that, I banned them both.
Still waiting for the retractions and apologies to Gov. Palin from SKYLARK and MAGIC DOG
That will never happen, for two reasons:
(1). From previous experience, I can tell you that Skylark is incapable of ever admitting defeat, and will keep trolling merrily away, and;
(2). Knowing that, I banned them both.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 23, 2008 07:49 AM (zqzYV)
35
Labradog, what is more interesting is the fact that the supposed "progressive" left, long high on its horse about the rights of women in the workplace, feminism, the glass ceiling, etc., has been EXPOSED for the liars they are. They don't care about ANY of those things - what they care about is advancing the cause of LIBERALISM. The ongoing fact-less, baseless, vile, disgusting, despicable smears and attacks perpetrated by the left against not just Sarah but her FAMILY is so far beyond anything resembling common decency that one can only conclude decency is a construct simply abandoned by the left.
That being said, Sarah is tough, as are her supporters, and we are more than up to the task of debunking the onslaught of lies and smears from liberals about her...bring it on!
That being said, Sarah is tough, as are her supporters, and we are more than up to the task of debunking the onslaught of lies and smears from liberals about her...bring it on!
Posted by: vox at September 23, 2008 07:52 AM (ptKf/)
36
Vox, I'm sorry to have removed the Labradog post to which you were referring, but I do not tolerate gratuitous profanity, nor the time to edit their posts. Sadly, liberals seem to excel at name calling, even though manyy aren't very good at much else.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 23, 2008 07:56 AM (zqzYV)
37
I complained before that absence of records is not proof of no billing, ( though it is correct to assert stating there is such a record would be a falsehood.) Most left arguments I've seen turfed around "connect the dots" saying there were inarguably x many sexual assault cases during Palin's term, therefore even in the absence of records, we can assume from the existing policy that some proportion of that x number of victims were billed.
I caution you: I understand there is no direct evidence of this, but Victims may also have tried to refuse bills from hospitals and/or hospitals refused to bill the Wasilla police, because of the Wasilla PD policy of not directly picking up the tab for the forensic tests. What would happen if a victim complained about being dunned for the rape-kit portion of a bill?
If victim or hospital approached Wasilla police department and was told “we don’t cover that”.that exchange would not appear in any “billing records” of Wasilla police department, no matter how extensive.
In that sort of situation no bill by Wasilla is generated, yet the patient is stuck with it all the same. ( though It would seem more likely she would be referred to a victims compensation fund.)
You go on to emphasize the availability of victims compensation from a fund with a reputation for liberality prior to the 2000 law; that victims were always made aware of this method of handling a bill from a hospital is another question.
Palin might have thought that permitting victims, or some collateral source of payment they might have, to pay for forensic tests was reasonable. I would hope she would not excuse it. But I've seen no evidence she actually gave the matter much or any thought other than to sign off on the local pd budget.
I've actually heard some embarassing excuses in knee-jerk defense of the practice of billing crime victims for forensic examinations or collection of physical evidence. I really don't want to hear Palin make them.
The turfing of distortions of the rape-kit situation in Wasilla to smear Palin, is obvious to me. But she will be asked what she knew about the situation.
I caution you: I understand there is no direct evidence of this, but Victims may also have tried to refuse bills from hospitals and/or hospitals refused to bill the Wasilla police, because of the Wasilla PD policy of not directly picking up the tab for the forensic tests. What would happen if a victim complained about being dunned for the rape-kit portion of a bill?
If victim or hospital approached Wasilla police department and was told “we don’t cover that”.that exchange would not appear in any “billing records” of Wasilla police department, no matter how extensive.
In that sort of situation no bill by Wasilla is generated, yet the patient is stuck with it all the same. ( though It would seem more likely she would be referred to a victims compensation fund.)
You go on to emphasize the availability of victims compensation from a fund with a reputation for liberality prior to the 2000 law; that victims were always made aware of this method of handling a bill from a hospital is another question.
Palin might have thought that permitting victims, or some collateral source of payment they might have, to pay for forensic tests was reasonable. I would hope she would not excuse it. But I've seen no evidence she actually gave the matter much or any thought other than to sign off on the local pd budget.
I've actually heard some embarassing excuses in knee-jerk defense of the practice of billing crime victims for forensic examinations or collection of physical evidence. I really don't want to hear Palin make them.
The turfing of distortions of the rape-kit situation in Wasilla to smear Palin, is obvious to me. But she will be asked what she knew about the situation.
Posted by: Sarahw at September 23, 2008 08:04 AM (7sl9X)
38
I complained before that absence of records is not proof of no billing, ( though it is correct to assert stating there is such a record would be a falsehood.) Most left arguments I've seen turfed around "connect the dots" saying there were inarguably x many sexual assault cases during Palin's term, therefore even in the absence of records, we can assume from the existing policy that some proportion of that x number of victims were billed.
I caution you: I understand there is no direct evidence of this, but Victims may also have tried to refuse bills from hospitals and/or hospitals refused to bill the Wasilla police, because of the Wasilla PD policy of not directly picking up the tab for the forensic tests. What would happen if a victim complained about being dunned for the rape-kit portion of a bill?
If victim or hospital approached Wasilla police department and was told “we don’t cover that”.that exchange would not appear in any “billing records” of Wasilla police department, no matter how extensive.
In that sort of situation no bill by Wasilla is generated, yet the patient is stuck with it all the same. ( though It would seem more likely she would be referred to a victims compensation fund.)
You go on to emphasize the availability of victims compensation from a fund with a reputation for liberality prior to the 2000 law; that victims were always made aware of this method of handling a bill from a hospital is another question.
Palin might have thought that permitting victims, or some collateral source of payment they might have, to pay for forensic tests was reasonable. I would hope she would not excuse it. But I've seen no evidence she actually gave the matter much or any thought other than to sign off on the local pd budget.
I've actually heard some embarassing excuses in knee-jerk defense of the practice of billing crime victims for forensic examinations or collection of physical evidence. I really don't want to hear Palin make them.
The turfing of distortions of the rape-kit situation in Wasilla to smear Palin, is obvious to me. But she will be asked what she knew about the situation.
I caution you: I understand there is no direct evidence of this, but Victims may also have tried to refuse bills from hospitals and/or hospitals refused to bill the Wasilla police, because of the Wasilla PD policy of not directly picking up the tab for the forensic tests. What would happen if a victim complained about being dunned for the rape-kit portion of a bill?
If victim or hospital approached Wasilla police department and was told “we don’t cover that”.that exchange would not appear in any “billing records” of Wasilla police department, no matter how extensive.
In that sort of situation no bill by Wasilla is generated, yet the patient is stuck with it all the same. ( though It would seem more likely she would be referred to a victims compensation fund.)
You go on to emphasize the availability of victims compensation from a fund with a reputation for liberality prior to the 2000 law; that victims were always made aware of this method of handling a bill from a hospital is another question.
Palin might have thought that permitting victims, or some collateral source of payment they might have, to pay for forensic tests was reasonable. I would hope she would not excuse it. But I've seen no evidence she actually gave the matter much or any thought other than to sign off on the local pd budget.
I've actually heard some embarassing excuses in knee-jerk defense of the practice of billing crime victims for forensic examinations or collection of physical evidence. I really don't want to hear Palin make them.
The turfing of distortions of the rape-kit situation in Wasilla to smear Palin, is obvious to me. But she will be asked what she knew about the situation.
Posted by: SarahW at September 23, 2008 08:05 AM (7sl9X)
39
Who's paying for "collecting evidence" into the hacking of Mrs Palin's yahoo account?
I mean, there is a financial crisis on...
I mean, there is a financial crisis on...
Posted by: Vuk at September 23, 2008 09:16 AM (6nn2S)
40
I'd like to interject a fact-finding suggestion I haven't seen or heard elsewhere, with respect to the rape kit issue...the one and only thing cited by the Palin smear merchants as evidence she charged rape victims for rape kits was a story that appeared in the Wasilla Frontiersman in 2000, quoting former Police Chief Fannon as being opposed to taxpayers footing the bill for the kits. That article was written by one Jo C. Goode. Here's a dumb question - has anyone tried to contact Ms. Goode? I can think of a SLEW of follow-up questions I'd like to ask her about her interview with Fannon, chief among them being if she knew of any instances were Fannon actually charged a rape victim personally for a rape kit.
I don't have time to do any more research right now, but it seems like an enterprising party interested in the truth about this issue might be able to determine whether Ms. Goode still works at the Frontiersman, or has an email address, etc.
I don't have time to do any more research right now, but it seems like an enterprising party interested in the truth about this issue might be able to determine whether Ms. Goode still works at the Frontiersman, or has an email address, etc.
Posted by: vox at September 23, 2008 09:43 AM (ptKf/)
41
jms2008--
There's no "of course the taxpayer should pay for it about it." First of all, the police don't dust for fingerprints in a burglary, at least not where I live (the people's republic of Obama). They didn't even look at my apartment when it was broken into.
The family of a murder victim usually does have to pay someone to investigate if the murder is ever to be solved--and quite often have to pay to defend themselves from the police, who seldom look outside the family for perpetrators. They never bothered to investigate my brother-in-law's murder. That was in Ohio.
You should look at vox's point. It's true.
The fact is that often crime victims DO have to pay costs associated with these crimes. Why should rape be any different?
There is also another, more important point here. The "rape kit" is NOT a police procedure. It's a hospital procedure. That in itself drives the costs up. The taxpayer isn't paying only for the investigation of a crime, but for hospital overhead as well. Why should that be? It shouldn't.
BTW, you may find it difficult for people to take you seriously when you begin a post with "you idiot."
There's no "of course the taxpayer should pay for it about it." First of all, the police don't dust for fingerprints in a burglary, at least not where I live (the people's republic of Obama). They didn't even look at my apartment when it was broken into.
The family of a murder victim usually does have to pay someone to investigate if the murder is ever to be solved--and quite often have to pay to defend themselves from the police, who seldom look outside the family for perpetrators. They never bothered to investigate my brother-in-law's murder. That was in Ohio.
You should look at vox's point. It's true.
The fact is that often crime victims DO have to pay costs associated with these crimes. Why should rape be any different?
There is also another, more important point here. The "rape kit" is NOT a police procedure. It's a hospital procedure. That in itself drives the costs up. The taxpayer isn't paying only for the investigation of a crime, but for hospital overhead as well. Why should that be? It shouldn't.
BTW, you may find it difficult for people to take you seriously when you begin a post with "you idiot."
Posted by: Trish at September 23, 2008 10:36 AM (pAgvx)
42
So, the town board meetings showing that she took that line item out of the budget is a lie? I saw the veto line. I also read the articles in the Alaska Daily News. The story is not bogus....Maybe your source was directed to some of those McCain surragates that Alaska is so mad at for coming in and taking over the state while not being elected by them to run the government!
Posted by: NC Female at September 23, 2008 11:57 AM (tzsBY)
Posted by: SarahW at September 23, 2008 12:14 PM (7sl9X)
44
1. I was an emergency room nurse for years .. we charged for the rape kits. Part of that was reimbursed through the county. Someone has to manufacture the kit, it costs money to put one together ... oh, wait .. perhaps G-d sends them down like manna therefore no one should charge a dime for breaking one open and using it to collect important evidence for a crime ... btw, we charged them for the band-aids to cover the scratches and cuts they acquired as well. Medicine is business, not charity.
2. Now I work in the legal field .. and yes, one must pay an investigator to collect evidence for a crime or to prove innocence. Because investigators like to eat, own homes, and a few even like to use a car in their work.
Come on, people ... these facts have nothing to do with Dems, Reps, libtards, etcccccccccetera ... this is how capitalism works .. this is basic life stuff. Maybe someday we'll institute the barter system again and a woman can, say, trade coming in to clean the hospital room or office in order to get a rape kit to defend her rights. As for me, if I needed a rape kit, I'd be quite ammenable to purchasing one in order to nail the bastard ....
nuff said
2. Now I work in the legal field .. and yes, one must pay an investigator to collect evidence for a crime or to prove innocence. Because investigators like to eat, own homes, and a few even like to use a car in their work.
Come on, people ... these facts have nothing to do with Dems, Reps, libtards, etcccccccccetera ... this is how capitalism works .. this is basic life stuff. Maybe someday we'll institute the barter system again and a woman can, say, trade coming in to clean the hospital room or office in order to get a rape kit to defend her rights. As for me, if I needed a rape kit, I'd be quite ammenable to purchasing one in order to nail the bastard ....
nuff said
Posted by: atmosfire at September 23, 2008 01:08 PM (VaETX)
45
1. I was an emergency room nurse for years .. we charged for the rape kits. Part of that was reimbursed through the county. Someone has to manufacture the kit, it costs money to put one together ... oh, wait .. perhaps G-d sends them down like manna therefore no one should charge a dime for breaking one open and using it to collect important evidence for a crime ... btw, we charged them for the band-aids to cover the scratches and cuts they acquired as well. Medicine is business, not charity.
2. Now I work in the legal field .. and yes, one must pay an investigator to collect evidence for a crime or to prove innocence. Because investigators like to eat, own homes, and a few even like to use a car in their work.
Come on, people ... these facts have nothing to do with Dems, Reps, libtards, etcccccccccetera ... this is how capitalism works .. this is basic life stuff. Maybe someday we'll institute the barter system again and a woman can, say, trade coming in to clean the hospital room or office in order to get a rape kit to defend her rights. As for me, if I needed a rape kit, I'd be quite ammenable to purchasing one in order to nail the bastard ....
But just so you know ... at the hospital I worked at, if the woman was penniless, the staff paid for the kit through a fund we all contributed to monthly that also provided medications for children of families that didn't have the money to buy.
nuff said
2. Now I work in the legal field .. and yes, one must pay an investigator to collect evidence for a crime or to prove innocence. Because investigators like to eat, own homes, and a few even like to use a car in their work.
Come on, people ... these facts have nothing to do with Dems, Reps, libtards, etcccccccccetera ... this is how capitalism works .. this is basic life stuff. Maybe someday we'll institute the barter system again and a woman can, say, trade coming in to clean the hospital room or office in order to get a rape kit to defend her rights. As for me, if I needed a rape kit, I'd be quite ammenable to purchasing one in order to nail the bastard ....
But just so you know ... at the hospital I worked at, if the woman was penniless, the staff paid for the kit through a fund we all contributed to monthly that also provided medications for children of families that didn't have the money to buy.
nuff said
Posted by: atmosfire at September 23, 2008 01:11 PM (VaETX)
46
So, the town board meetings showing that she took that line item out of the budget is a lie? I saw the veto line. I also read the articles in the Alaska Daily News. The story is not bogus
Unfortunately for you, NC Female, nowhere in the budget does it have a specific line for "rape kits".
What has happened is that leftists like yourself, in a desperate attempt to smear Palin, glommed on to an undefined line item and claimed that it was for rape kits -- and that, since it was cut, Palin was charging victims for rape kits.
In short, you don't have a leg on which to stand. And as far as people from North Carolina talking about rape, we should remember that North Carolina Democrats define rape as when a white man is accused without evidence by a drunk and drugged-out black prostitute and the local DA sees an opportunity to manipulate the black community into voting for him.
Unfortunately for you, NC Female, nowhere in the budget does it have a specific line for "rape kits".
What has happened is that leftists like yourself, in a desperate attempt to smear Palin, glommed on to an undefined line item and claimed that it was for rape kits -- and that, since it was cut, Palin was charging victims for rape kits.
In short, you don't have a leg on which to stand. And as far as people from North Carolina talking about rape, we should remember that North Carolina Democrats define rape as when a white man is accused without evidence by a drunk and drugged-out black prostitute and the local DA sees an opportunity to manipulate the black community into voting for him.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at September 23, 2008 01:40 PM (E3Yxq)
47
Mat-Su Frontiersman, May 23 2000:
"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."
Can't find the actual bills? Victims have moved - or been quietly told to shut up if they know what's good for them? Then it didn't happen! Ergo, this is a phony smear!
Ah, Wingnut Logic in action.
You've already closed comments on your prior lame post & redirected to this just-as-lame one, since a surplus of lucid comments there quickly blew a big gaping hole in your bogus angle. Are you ever going to get tired of being proven wrong over & over & over again? My guess is no.
"(1). From previous experience, I can tell you that Skylark is incapable of ever admitting defeat, and will keep trolling merrily away, and;
(2). Knowing that, I banned them both."
Translation: don't you dare pwn me on my own blog, or you shall be banished from my magic kingdom. Both childish & comical - as is the comment from someone who's bawwwwing about their precious tax money going to pay for silly frills, like rape kits. But at least you're consistent with the whole neocon "we create our own reality" theme.
As mentioned before - PLEASE, keep posting more of your "insights" on this topic, & watch as ALL the facts of the matter come to light - don't forget to discredit & harass the people (especially the rape-victims themselves) who can conclusively disprove your BS (after all, as Good Americans like Beck & Malkin will tell you, that's half the fun) ... hey, maybe you CAN dig your way out of this hole, if you just dig FAST enough!
LOL
"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."
Can't find the actual bills? Victims have moved - or been quietly told to shut up if they know what's good for them? Then it didn't happen! Ergo, this is a phony smear!
Ah, Wingnut Logic in action.
You've already closed comments on your prior lame post & redirected to this just-as-lame one, since a surplus of lucid comments there quickly blew a big gaping hole in your bogus angle. Are you ever going to get tired of being proven wrong over & over & over again? My guess is no.
"(1). From previous experience, I can tell you that Skylark is incapable of ever admitting defeat, and will keep trolling merrily away, and;
(2). Knowing that, I banned them both."
Translation: don't you dare pwn me on my own blog, or you shall be banished from my magic kingdom. Both childish & comical - as is the comment from someone who's bawwwwing about their precious tax money going to pay for silly frills, like rape kits. But at least you're consistent with the whole neocon "we create our own reality" theme.
As mentioned before - PLEASE, keep posting more of your "insights" on this topic, & watch as ALL the facts of the matter come to light - don't forget to discredit & harass the people (especially the rape-victims themselves) who can conclusively disprove your BS (after all, as Good Americans like Beck & Malkin will tell you, that's half the fun) ... hey, maybe you CAN dig your way out of this hole, if you just dig FAST enough!
LOL
Posted by: jim at September 23, 2008 01:54 PM (Kyveh)
48
Ah yes, this is what passes for Jim's left-wing nut "logic" - he cites an unsourced statement from a reporter about rape kits in an 8-year old story - the same story where Police Chief Fannon was interviewed and said he tried to bill insurance companies when possible, but preferred to bill the perp for the rape kit - then without a SCINTILLA of actual EVIDENCE that Wasilla ever charged ANYONE for a rape kit, make the completely and utterly absurd stretch that not only did Mayor Palin know of and approve of charging victims for rape kits (despite her categorical denial of the practice)but she slashed the budget for the PD so they couldn't provide rape kits to victims.
Well of course! That's why to this day, despite the venerable army of Obama smear merchants who descended upon Wasilla looking to dig up dirt on Sarah, NO ONE has been able to find a single instance or anyone being charged for a rape kit. NOT ONE. Nothing in the city financial department records, nothing in the PD records, nothing in city council meeting minutes, no witnesses, no complaint....NOTHING.
But that lack of proof and lack of evidence certainly doesn't stop folks like Jim from perpetrating the rape kit SMEAR against Sarah, though, eh folks?
Hey Jim, speaking of holes, it looks like your forgot the first rule about them....when you find yourself in one, STOP DIGGING.
ROTFL
Well of course! That's why to this day, despite the venerable army of Obama smear merchants who descended upon Wasilla looking to dig up dirt on Sarah, NO ONE has been able to find a single instance or anyone being charged for a rape kit. NOT ONE. Nothing in the city financial department records, nothing in the PD records, nothing in city council meeting minutes, no witnesses, no complaint....NOTHING.
But that lack of proof and lack of evidence certainly doesn't stop folks like Jim from perpetrating the rape kit SMEAR against Sarah, though, eh folks?
Hey Jim, speaking of holes, it looks like your forgot the first rule about them....when you find yourself in one, STOP DIGGING.
ROTFL
Posted by: vox at September 23, 2008 02:44 PM (ptKf/)
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 23, 2008 04:39 PM (i/fLn)
50
Regardless of the practice in Wasilla:
A rape kit is not medical treatment. It is not for the benefit of the victim. It is for the benefit of the public. It is a means of gathering evidence for use in a trial against the rapist.
Charging victims (or their insurance companies) for their own rape investigation has got to be the most penny-wise and pound foolish thing you could imagine. All it does is lead to less victims reporting rapes.
Obviously the hospital needs to be paid. The law enforcement agency requesting the kit needs to pay for it.
Catching rapists is in the public's interest. The public should therefore pay the costs associated with catching these criminals.
Do we really want to discourage rape victims from going to the hospital and helping us catch rapists because they may be forced to pay for their rape kit?
A rape kit is not medical treatment. It is not for the benefit of the victim. It is for the benefit of the public. It is a means of gathering evidence for use in a trial against the rapist.
Charging victims (or their insurance companies) for their own rape investigation has got to be the most penny-wise and pound foolish thing you could imagine. All it does is lead to less victims reporting rapes.
Obviously the hospital needs to be paid. The law enforcement agency requesting the kit needs to pay for it.
Catching rapists is in the public's interest. The public should therefore pay the costs associated with catching these criminals.
Do we really want to discourage rape victims from going to the hospital and helping us catch rapists because they may be forced to pay for their rape kit?
Posted by: seattle slough at September 23, 2008 06:21 PM (H5l9d)
51
seattle slough - I agree and Obama supporters should lean on the Senator to get the law changed to reflect your sentiment in Illinois rather than beating a dead issue in Alaska. Why does Obama want this practice to continue in Illinois? Why didn't he do something about it when he was in the state legislature?
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 23, 2008 07:10 PM (i/fLn)
52
Hey, folks, thanks for the additional information. I've updated #72 to include it.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at September 23, 2008 08:03 PM (VmXnH)
53
Seattle Slough - exactly.
If a victim want's to do her own private investigation, I suppose he could pay for her own private investigator and evidence gathering experts.
But it's almost ridiculous to argue that forensic evidence collection, which would not be done at all except to catch and prosecute criminals attacking members of the community, ( and which will be maintained, processed and detroyed at the whim of law enforcement authorities, not the property of the victim) should be charged to a victim or some collateral source of reimbursement maintained by the victim.
The crime may have a victim, but the criminal will be charged as comitting a crime against the people. It would be the same thing as charging the estate of a murder victim for the autopsy or the collection of nail scrapings and bodily fluids or dental impressions.
I don't know where people get the fool idea that the rape kit is medical treatment of the victim.
Many victims of violent crimes have available to them sources of reimbursement of compensation for losses experienced as a result of crime. However, the rape-kit should never be lumped in with those kinds of losses.
This kit and the time and expertise required to collect the evidence put into it is for the benefit of the community at large, for the capture and conviction of a violator of its laws.
If a victim want's to do her own private investigation, I suppose he could pay for her own private investigator and evidence gathering experts.
But it's almost ridiculous to argue that forensic evidence collection, which would not be done at all except to catch and prosecute criminals attacking members of the community, ( and which will be maintained, processed and detroyed at the whim of law enforcement authorities, not the property of the victim) should be charged to a victim or some collateral source of reimbursement maintained by the victim.
The crime may have a victim, but the criminal will be charged as comitting a crime against the people. It would be the same thing as charging the estate of a murder victim for the autopsy or the collection of nail scrapings and bodily fluids or dental impressions.
I don't know where people get the fool idea that the rape kit is medical treatment of the victim.
Many victims of violent crimes have available to them sources of reimbursement of compensation for losses experienced as a result of crime. However, the rape-kit should never be lumped in with those kinds of losses.
This kit and the time and expertise required to collect the evidence put into it is for the benefit of the community at large, for the capture and conviction of a violator of its laws.
Posted by: SarahW at September 24, 2008 10:38 AM (7sl9X)
54
Seattle Slough - exactly.
If a victim want's to do her own private investigation, I suppose he/she could pay for his/her own private investigator and evidence gathering experts.
But it's almost ridiculous to argue that forensic evidence collection, which would not be done at all except to catch and prosecute criminals attacking members of the community, ( and which will be maintained, processed and detroyed at the whim of law enforcement authorities, not the property of the victim) should be charged to a victim or some collateral source of reimbursement maintained by the victim.
The crime may have a victim, but the criminal will be charged as comitting a crime against the people. It would be the same thing as charging the estate of a murder victim for the autopsy or the collection of nail scrapings and bodily fluids or dental impressions, &tc.
I don't know where people get the fool idea that the rape kit is medical treatment of the victim.
Many victims of violent crimes have available to them sources of reimbursement of compensation for losses experienced as a result of crime. However, the rape-kit should never be lumped in with those kinds of losses.
This kit and the time and expertise required soley to collect the evidence put into it is for the benefit of the community at large, for the capture and conviction of a violator of its laws.
If a victim want's to do her own private investigation, I suppose he/she could pay for his/her own private investigator and evidence gathering experts.
But it's almost ridiculous to argue that forensic evidence collection, which would not be done at all except to catch and prosecute criminals attacking members of the community, ( and which will be maintained, processed and detroyed at the whim of law enforcement authorities, not the property of the victim) should be charged to a victim or some collateral source of reimbursement maintained by the victim.
The crime may have a victim, but the criminal will be charged as comitting a crime against the people. It would be the same thing as charging the estate of a murder victim for the autopsy or the collection of nail scrapings and bodily fluids or dental impressions, &tc.
I don't know where people get the fool idea that the rape kit is medical treatment of the victim.
Many victims of violent crimes have available to them sources of reimbursement of compensation for losses experienced as a result of crime. However, the rape-kit should never be lumped in with those kinds of losses.
This kit and the time and expertise required soley to collect the evidence put into it is for the benefit of the community at large, for the capture and conviction of a violator of its laws.
Posted by: SarahW at September 24, 2008 10:40 AM (7sl9X)
55
How do you explain away the comments of the head of the police department, which were published ing the local paper when this was being publicly discussed?
Posted by: THS at September 24, 2008 11:10 AM (9QZWj)
56
Solitary SarahW showing some sense.
Thank you. Seems as if noone has a soul around here.
"And as far as people from North Carolina talking about rape, we should remember that North Carolina Democrats define rape as when a white man is accused without evidence by a drunk and drugged-out black prostitute and the local DA sees an opportunity to manipulate the black community into voting for him"
Do yall respect this guy? Way to rep Dallas and conservatives
Thank you. Seems as if noone has a soul around here.
"And as far as people from North Carolina talking about rape, we should remember that North Carolina Democrats define rape as when a white man is accused without evidence by a drunk and drugged-out black prostitute and the local DA sees an opportunity to manipulate the black community into voting for him"
Do yall respect this guy? Way to rep Dallas and conservatives
Posted by: poot at September 24, 2008 12:36 PM (lcg/8)
57
Wow Trish, you really are an horrible human being.
Posted by: Sandra at September 24, 2008 01:09 PM (GJCbw)
58
Hey all -- I'm about as liberal/progressive as they come, and I'll admit that it has long appeared this one was complete bullshit. I feel bad that I have repeated it, and will be bringing up the refutation in all my future encounters with my fellow liberals, when and if this comes up, I'll say it's been pretty conclusively refuted.
Of course, y'all realize that stereotyping and berating ALL liberals for their vicious, stupid, vile name-calling is exactly what liberals say about conservatives. What are the odds that either group is completely right? Though I have been guilty of exactly that same lumping together of people, I think it serves no one but America's enemies when we spend endless time trying to figure out which group or party is less mature or less truthful.
Politicians lie. Obama's a politican. Palin is too. So's McCain. And Biden. They all have lied, and not just for higher principles, I'm sure, but also to get elected and for expediency. They have all, odds are, betrayed the public trust they wield at some point because it's almost impossible in positions of great power NOT to (remember: McCain was involved in the Savings & Loan crisis of the 80s). I'm not saying Republicans are particularly corrupt or inveterate liars: some are, some aren't, some are as bad as liberals, some are as good as liberals, because anyone who doesn't think there is a large preponderance of jackholes in both political parties is charmingly if hopelessly naive or simply deluded.
Despite the fact that I don't think Obama is liberal ENOUGH, I think politics *should* be based on facts. Now knowing them, I stand corrected. It doesn't change the fact that I think Palin is uniquely unqualified (an argument for another time) -- though it's worth mentioning that by many Republican's standards from before she was nominated, she's unqualified as well. They changed their tune...
Since we're truth-seekers here, I leave you with this from moderate conservative blogger Rachel Larrimore at Slate -- which I can't link to, or even write out the link to, even though she agrees with CY and brought me here, because it's called "questionable content"! Way to be open to honest differences of opinion...
"Some conservative bloggers are trying to play "gotcha" and point out that Barack Obama co-sponsored a bill in the Illinois state senate that provides state money to cover services provided to victims who have neither state aid or insurance, meaning that Illinois also tries to get insurance companies to pay up, just like little ol' Wasilla. Best I can tell from my rudimentary reading of the Illinois code, Obama co-sponsored an amendment to existing legislation that already had the insurance clause in there, and the amendment had nothing to do with rape kits. So, I'm not going to engage in gotcha-ism. We could play that game all day long."
Of course, y'all realize that stereotyping and berating ALL liberals for their vicious, stupid, vile name-calling is exactly what liberals say about conservatives. What are the odds that either group is completely right? Though I have been guilty of exactly that same lumping together of people, I think it serves no one but America's enemies when we spend endless time trying to figure out which group or party is less mature or less truthful.
Politicians lie. Obama's a politican. Palin is too. So's McCain. And Biden. They all have lied, and not just for higher principles, I'm sure, but also to get elected and for expediency. They have all, odds are, betrayed the public trust they wield at some point because it's almost impossible in positions of great power NOT to (remember: McCain was involved in the Savings & Loan crisis of the 80s). I'm not saying Republicans are particularly corrupt or inveterate liars: some are, some aren't, some are as bad as liberals, some are as good as liberals, because anyone who doesn't think there is a large preponderance of jackholes in both political parties is charmingly if hopelessly naive or simply deluded.
Despite the fact that I don't think Obama is liberal ENOUGH, I think politics *should* be based on facts. Now knowing them, I stand corrected. It doesn't change the fact that I think Palin is uniquely unqualified (an argument for another time) -- though it's worth mentioning that by many Republican's standards from before she was nominated, she's unqualified as well. They changed their tune...
Since we're truth-seekers here, I leave you with this from moderate conservative blogger Rachel Larrimore at Slate -- which I can't link to, or even write out the link to, even though she agrees with CY and brought me here, because it's called "questionable content"! Way to be open to honest differences of opinion...
"Some conservative bloggers are trying to play "gotcha" and point out that Barack Obama co-sponsored a bill in the Illinois state senate that provides state money to cover services provided to victims who have neither state aid or insurance, meaning that Illinois also tries to get insurance companies to pay up, just like little ol' Wasilla. Best I can tell from my rudimentary reading of the Illinois code, Obama co-sponsored an amendment to existing legislation that already had the insurance clause in there, and the amendment had nothing to do with rape kits. So, I'm not going to engage in gotcha-ism. We could play that game all day long."
Posted by: J at September 24, 2008 04:36 PM (m8YuZ)
59
*** I've never raped anybody in my life. Why do I have to pay for rape? ***
For the same reason you have pay for the investigation and prosecution of every other crime, you galactic imbecile. What's unique about rape?
For the same reason you have pay for the investigation and prosecution of every other crime, you galactic imbecile. What's unique about rape?
Posted by: Mark C at September 24, 2008 07:26 PM (f9GYd)
60
I know Eric Croft. He wrote the bill (HB270) that specifically targeted Wasilla because their policy was to charge victims OR their insurance companies. It DID happen. Their were victims whose insurance companies got charged. Eric's Bill was signed into law in early 2000, so by law, they could no longer charge victims.
You and this ridiculous site are missing the point; Sarah Palin didn't want the taxpayers to pay for forensic rape kits. Her fundamentalist beliefs prevent her from allowing emergency contraception (NOT an abortion pill so don't confuse the two)to be offered to the victims. THAT is why she would not pay for the kits.
IT's THE POLICY, STUPID!
You and this ridiculous site are missing the point; Sarah Palin didn't want the taxpayers to pay for forensic rape kits. Her fundamentalist beliefs prevent her from allowing emergency contraception (NOT an abortion pill so don't confuse the two)to be offered to the victims. THAT is why she would not pay for the kits.
IT's THE POLICY, STUPID!
Posted by: Kelly at September 24, 2008 11:31 PM (Xgj1D)
61
Unfortunately, this blog posting simply isn't consistent with Wasilla news at the time. See this article from 2000:
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt
Sure the police can't find any "evidence" now, but given the fact that Palin would have no problems demanding that such records be destroyed, I'm not surprised (plus it's an embarrassment to the police dept now, and of course police never do cover-ups). I'd be more surprised if proof was still laying around.
From the article: "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.
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.
In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said."
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt
Sure the police can't find any "evidence" now, but given the fact that Palin would have no problems demanding that such records be destroyed, I'm not surprised (plus it's an embarrassment to the police dept now, and of course police never do cover-ups). I'd be more surprised if proof was still laying around.
From the article: "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.
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.
In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said."
Posted by: Kenneth at September 26, 2008 09:33 AM (XCrD8)
62
Why focus on billing for rape kits? We can all agree that the health care system is broken, and exorbitant bills are part of it. What concerns me is that Gov. Palin would make it difficult, if not impossible, for rape victims to get an abortion had they become pregnant from the attack. The vast majority of American women are pro-choice, remember?
Posted by: Diane Gordon at September 26, 2008 02:41 PM (VR1gh)
63
I was very struck by Vox's statement of 9/23/08 at 12:18 a.m. "that illinois bill that states victims of rape with insurance are responsible for the rape kit charge was co-sponsored by...wait for it...wait for it....barack obama. not kidding."
I was so struck that I went to the Illinois website address given by Vox and discovered that the offending language was fist promulgated as P.A. 85-571 in the 1987-88 Legislative Session. Since Obama did not join the State Senate until 1997, it is a little difficult to see how he could have sponsored it.
That he did not correct the legislation when he was a Senator is a fault -- but a long way short of being nailed as "co-sponsor".
I was so struck that I went to the Illinois website address given by Vox and discovered that the offending language was fist promulgated as P.A. 85-571 in the 1987-88 Legislative Session. Since Obama did not join the State Senate until 1997, it is a little difficult to see how he could have sponsored it.
That he did not correct the legislation when he was a Senator is a fault -- but a long way short of being nailed as "co-sponsor".
Posted by: Xov at September 28, 2008 07:21 PM (Z8gCM)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.034 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0231 seconds, 71 records returned.
Page size 68 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.