Oh, So THAT'S Why

[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, co-sponsored by Obama, 2001.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.