Oh, So THAT'S Why

[3894]

As mayor of Wasilla, Palin didn't want the city to pay for rape forensic kits because they include emergency birth control.

Quick Quote: Sarah Palin has absolutely no problem with the state paying for evidence gathering. But the problem is that a rape kit is far more than evidence-gathering. A rape kit also tests for STD’s and provides emergency contraception at state expense.

The line that Sarah Palin toed was basically this: no way, no how, no public funding at the municipal, state, or federal level for rape kits that contain emergency contraception. But investigation costs, she says? No problem.
Article here. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/17/175430/636/888/601186)

If anyone wants to discuss abortion/ways to prevent abortion and the current election, I'm hoping this will be the thread for it.

[wendybeth]

From a CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.pastor/)report regarding her religious views:



Palin has done little while in office to advance a social conservative agenda. She told The Associated Press in an interview in 2006 that she would not allow her personal beliefs to dictate public policy. "I've honestly answered the questions on what my personal views are on things like abortion and a lot of controversial issues," Palin told AP. "I won't hesitate to answer those questions about what my personal views are, but I am not one to be out there preaching and forcing my views on anyone else."


Yeah, right.

[Betty]

So - she would prefer that if she or her daughter were raped that she have the baby then. And because SHE prefers that, she means will make that preference apply to everyone else whether they prefer that or not.

Also something about cutting off your nose to spite your face or something.

I'm inclined to say that she has no business what my cootch and uterus are doing. Thank you very much. Doesn't she have better things to do anyway? Or is she now the officially on cootch partrol?

[Snowflake]

Well it seems even some of the GOP is less than enchanted with Palin:

GOP senator: A 'stretch' to say Palin is qualified

WASHINGTON - Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel said his party's vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, lacks foreign policy experience and called it a "stretch" to say she's qualified to be president.

"She doesn't have any foreign policy credentials," Hagel said in an interview published Thursday by the Omaha World-Herald. "You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything."

Could Palin lead the country if GOP presidential nominee John McCain could not?

"I think it's a stretch to, in any way, to say that she's got the experience to be president of the United States," Hagel said.

Complete article here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_el_pr/hagel_palin)

[sleepyjeff]

As mayor of Wasilla, Palin didn't want the city to pay for rape forensic kits because they include emergency birth control.

Quick Quote:
Article here. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/17/175430/636/888/601186)




"Basically"....."Basically"

What did she actually say?

[3894]

"Basically"....."Basically"

I don't understand.

What did she actually say?

The article quotes Palin's spokesperson. If you can find an actual, direct Palin quote, a tall nonfat pumpkin spice latte with cranberry scone for you. As we all know, Palin hasn't given many interviews yet.

[sleepyjeff]

The line that Sarah Palin toed was basically this: no way, no how, no public funding at the municipal, state, or federal level for rape kits that contain emergency contraception. But investigation costs, she says? No problem.

This wasn't from her spokesperson....and I doubt if she ever said anything of the sort; more mudslinging if you ask me.

[scaeagles]

I find it amusing that Fox News is slammed by some who cite stories on the dailykos.

[Alex]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is correct (after all, she is on record that rape is not moral justification for abortion) but simply saying it loudly and declaring at the end that "ipso facto it is so" does not make it so.

On this particular issue I still haven't seen (though I haven't looked) whether this was a policy begun during her administration or just continued and defended?

And without getting into the morality of abortion, I do think there is a case that could be made that emergency contraceptive is not an obligation to the state any more than the state will pay for the stitches you get as the result of assault or the new window you need after a burglary. Yes, it sucks a lot but there aren't many situations where the police will cover incurred expenses resulting from being victimized in a crime that aren't directly required for their investigation.

That said, while it might be a consistent policy to not cover it, if the emergency contraceptive were part of standard rape kits, I certainly wouldn't take the dogmatic line on the issue if only for PR/PC reasons.

[Morrigoon]

But the broken window doesn't result in a new child on welfare, whereas the rape might.

[Andrew]

People buy homeowners insurance to replace broken windows and health insurance to fix stitches. Maybe some enterprising insurance company could offer "crime insurance" to pay for rape kits.

[Alex]

I'm not saying I'd refuse to pay for the rape kit if it involved emergency contraception, Morrigoon. But there is a reasonable argument to be made that emergency contraception should not come out of the police department budget.

There are plenty of medical needs that may arise out of a rape (a 30-day supply anti-retrovirals to pretect against HIV for example) and this is the only one -- so far as I know -- where there is a default assumption that the police will pay for it. I have no idea what the line item cost is for them either.

I'm just putting forward that it isn't patently absurd to argue that the police should not be paying for it. Do I care if they do? No. But just like with many other issues of inconsistency, I may not particularly care but if the question is put bluntly then I do acknowledge that it is inconsistent.

[3894]

Let's compare Alaska to Illinois.

According to the Sexual Assault Emergency Treatment Act, the Illinois Department of Public Aid will reimburse the costs of ER treatment if you do not have public aid or private medical insurance. Under the Illinois Crime Victim’s Compensation Act, if you report the assault to the police within 72 hours of the crime and if you file a claim application within two years of the date of the crime, you can be reimbursed for out-of-pocket medical expenses, loss of earnings, psychological counseling, and loss of support income due to the crime. Reimbursement can be up to $27,000.-Univ. of Chicago ER

This is thanks to the Illinois Crime Victim’s Compensation Act (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/summary/920HB1814.html), co-sponsored by Obama, 2001.

[Morrigoon]

I'm not saying I'd refuse to pay for the rape kit if it involved emergency contraception, Morrigoon. But there is a reasonable argument to be made that emergency contraception should not come out of the police department budget.


I wasn't suggesting that you would, Alex. I was merely pointing out that there is financial justification for the state to support it. I didn't know it came specifically from police budgets, I was referring to state expenditures on the whole and the justification of the state paying for it.

[CoasterMatt]

Next time I see Chuck Hagel, I'm gonna buy him a beer :)

[bewitched]

There are no direct quotes insofar as I can find. After reading several articles, both liberal and conservative, on the issue here's (for what it's worth) what I believe to be the facts:


Palin was mayor of Wasilla for 4 years when the Governor became aware that the Wasilla police department was charging rape victims and/or their insurance companies for the cost of "rape kits." The police chief who instituted the policy was appointed by Sarah Palin after she dismissed his predecessor. Palin had direct supervisory powers over the police department and, as part of her job, signed off on the police department's budget. Palin claims she had no idea that rape victims were being charged. Her signature on the budget wherein the police chief slashed funding for the rape kits proves that she either did or should have known rape victims were being charged the $500-$1200 cost of the kit. The addition to the rape kits of tests for sexually transmitted diseases and the requirement to provide "access" to emergency contraception was made by the Alaskan legislature in the bill, passed in 2000, mandating that police departments in the state pay for the costs of the kit. Prior to the law being enacted, there was no requirement that either of those items be a part of the rape kits and, one would assume, the funding was not slashed because they "contained" emergency contraception as it is unlikely they actually did.

So, I believe Palin is lying through her teeth when she claims to have no knowledge of victims being charge for the rape kits. I also find it reprehensible that the police chief would institute a policy, and the governor would sign off on it, mandating that rape victims pay for their own rape kits-- to collect evidence for a crime committed against them.

Having said that, it doesn't appear that emergency contraception had anything to do with the decision and it is very hard to ascertain exactly what did.

[wendybeth]

She was just being fiscally responsible. :rolleyes: It's a wonder they don't charge the victims for court costs, but then again with rules like this it isn't too likely they caught the criminals.

[bewitched]

It's likely that the victims were asking for it anyway. :rolleyes:

[Strangler Lewis]

I'm not saying I'd refuse to pay for the rape kit if it involved emergency contraception, Morrigoon. But there is a reasonable argument to be made that emergency contraception should not come out of the police department budget.

There are plenty of medical needs that may arise out of a rape (a 30-day supply anti-retrovirals to pretect against HIV for example) and this is the only one -- so far as I know -- where there is a default assumption that the police will pay for it. I have no idea what the line item cost is for them either.

I'm just putting forward that it isn't patently absurd to argue that the police should not be paying for it. Do I care if they do? No. But just like with many other issues of inconsistency, I may not particularly care but if the question is put bluntly then I do acknowledge that it is inconsistent.

In my neck of the woods, a fellow just got a life sentence for what was arguably statutory rape of his twelve year-old. As I gathered from the article, a hefty component of his sentence was an enhancement for great bodily injury in the form of the girl's pregnancy. I assume that passing a disease would result in a similar enhancement. Thus, "law enforcement" arguably has a financial interest in keeping incarceration costs down by preventing evidence that would support such an enhancement from ripening.

On the other hand, come budget time, "law enforcement" also has a financial interest in its crime victims appearing as victimized as possible. As a crime victim myself, I don't say this cynically, but the reality is that law enforcment is a government agency like any other, and it is interested in manipulating public opinion for self-interested reasons.