USA Today: Palin's town used to bill victims for rape kits

[Larry]

Link.

WASILLA, Alaska — In 2000, Alaska lawmakers learned that rural police agencies had been billing rape victims or their insurance companies $500 to $1,200 for the costs of the forensic medical examinations used to gather evidence. They quickly passed a law prohibiting the practice.

According to the sponsor, Democrat Eric Croft, the law was aimed in part at Wasilla, where now-Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor. When it was signed, Wasilla's police chief expressed displeasure.

(More at link.)

OK,

1) The article doesn't say, or even imply, that Palin began, approved, or even knew of the policy.

2) Recognizing that this subject (rape) is really easy to score political points over what sounds like a practice that may be, if not common, at least not unheard of in lots of places.

3) Also pointing out that the article quotes the Governor's spokesman saying that Palin is absolutely opposed to this practice.

4) OTOH, if this was going on while she was Mayor, and if she only found out about it when the state legislature passed a law forbidding her city to do it, then what does it say about her"executive experience".

5) And her Chief of Police supposedly objected to (stopping charging crime victims), and nothing happened to him?

Oh, and:

Nationally, victims' advocates have for years reported scattered instances of rape victims being required to pay for their forensic tests, says Ilse Knecht of the National Center for Victims of Crime in Washington. Those complaints have subsided somewhat after Congress in 2005 passed a law requiring states to provide rape exams free of charge or reimburse victims for the costs, says Knecht, whose group supported the provision.

"The reason we passed the legislation was that we saw it was prevalent enough to be a pretty considerable problem," Knecht says. "There are no other victims of crime that end up being billed for evidence collection."

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

[Redskins Diehard]

Clearly Republicans are in favor of rape. That is the only reasonable explanation as to why McCain didn't co-sponsor the bill.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

So, Palin is pro-rape?

No seriously, the only thing I can really take from this is that Palin does not really have a strong record on women's issues. It's actually pretty poor...

[Teller]

Former cop here.

Rape kits are provided by the hospital, and BILLED by the hospital.

I LOOOOOOOVE the utter, complete, PATHETIC desperation though.

You all have finally managed to convince me. I was contemplating a return to the fold.

Gimme a hug, GOP, the hog is back.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Former cop here.

Rape kits are provided by the hospital, and BILLED by the hospital.

I LOOOOOOOVE the utter, complete, PATHETIC desperation though.

You all have finally managed to convince me. I was contemplating a return to the fold.

Gimme a hug, GOP, the hog is back.

Why does your former copness not surprise me.

So, you are saying the article is wrong?

[TrumanB]

Gimme a hug, GOP, the hog is back.

Git 'em, Hog, git 'em.

[Teller]

Why does your former copness not surprise me.

So, you are saying the article is wrong?

This oughta be good.

Why's that?

The rapes that I worked were all done with hospital-provided kits, and if they were billed, they were billed by the hospital.

What is the mechanism by which a police department, on it's own, bills an insurance company? I can honestly say, I have never seen, nor heard of that.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This oughta be good.

Why's that?

The rapes that I worked were all done with hospital-provided kits, and if they were billed, they were billed by the hospital.

What is the mechanism by which a police department, on it's own, bills an insurance company? I can honestly say, I have never seen, nor heard of that.

Easy there Hog, I used TWO of those dorky little emoticons. But, if you must know, I've always pictured you with a moustache.

I've never heard of this practice until now either. However, I've never even been to Alaska. Have you ever been to Alaska? I mean, it wouldn't really be that hard for the State/City to send a bill after gathering the health insurance information of the victim.

Have you ever been a police officer in Wasilla, Alaska?

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

You all have finally managed to convince me. I was contemplating a return to the fold.

Gimme a hug, GOP, the hog is back.

You know when push came to shove..you weren't going to sit this one out.

[Teller]

You know when push came to shove..you weren't going to sit this one out.

Of course not. I was going to cast a write-in. I'd NEVER not vote....

Having said that, I'll excuse myself now and allow the propagation of misinformation (despite ALL the smears that have been proven wrong.)

I realize that any information from personal experience I have that might combat an obvious smear is anecdotal.

[chow184]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-Alv...eature=related

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Of course not. I was going to cast a write-in. I'd NEVER not vote....

Having said that, I'll excuse myself now and allow the propagation of misinformation (despite ALL the smears that have been proven wrong.)

I realize that any information from personal experience I have that might combat an obvious smear is anecdotal.

I'm taking this as a huge overreaction to me pointing out that every state has different laws... Is this not in response to my post?

Also, this not a "smear" at all... there is no personal attack made by the article's author or anyone in this thread... other than my JOKE followed by the "seriously though..."

[Larry]

Of course not. I was going to cast a write-in. I'd NEVER not vote....

Having said that, I'll excuse myself now and allow the propagation of misinformation (despite ALL the smears that have been proven wrong.)

I realize that any information from personal experience I have that might combat an obvious smear is anecdotal.

Translation: You've tried to defend a reprehensible practice by pointing out that it happens in lots of places. (Just like I did, in the original post).

The fact that it happens in lots of places, however, didn't convince people that it wasn't reprehensible. (Because it shouldn't.)

Therefore, you're going to throw out some insults, and call some people liars, and claim that you're doing so for the noblest of moral reasons.

[Oldskool]

Not even 9/11 stops Larry's douchebaggery.

Well played, sir.

[Predicto]

Of course not. I was going to cast a write-in. I'd NEVER not vote....

Having said that, I'll excuse myself now and allow the propagation of misinformation (despite ALL the smears that have been proven wrong.)

I realize that any information from personal experience I have that might combat an obvious smear is anecdotal.

Except 2/3rds of the things you've complained about haven't really been smears. Asking any questions about a complete unknown's background, qualificiations or views is apparently a smear now.

This one might be. It certainly might have nothing to do with Palin at all.

However, I would be surprised if the whole thing was completely untrue, and no one was ever charged for rape kits, as you seem to be asserting with great righteousness.