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.

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.

Let's compare Alaska to Illinois.

This is thanks to the Illinois Crime Victim’s Compensation Act, co-sponsored by Obama, 2001.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.