From the DailyKos:
Mayor Palin Charged Victims for Their Own Rape Kits.
Yep! There's the headline! Now for the nuance.
The diarist quotes an article from the Frontiersman in 2000:
"Gov. Tony Knowles recently signed legislation protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for tests to collect evidence of the crime, but one local police chief said the new law will further burden taxpayers.
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."
But here's the fun admission:
"Sarah Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002. Whether this practice started before she was mayor, it's unclear."
Again: nuance.
But let's parse: The Obama-Left argues that Wasilla, AK is some "hicks in the sticks" community of 23 people. Now they want to warrant that Wasilla is like some metropolitan behemoth like Detroit, MI. "PAY FOR YOUR RAPE KIT!" as if, well, everyone ever is getting raped.
MORE: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THIS LAW WAS IGNORED BY WASILLA UNDER THE PALIN ADMINISTRATION POST-2000! None. Nada.
Listen to the quote from the Police Chief: "the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams."
Does that mean that Wasilla itself said: "Forget you, State law! We're chargin our wimmin'!" No. Not at all. The Police Chief -- NOT SARAH PALIN -- voiced disagreement. And it didn't mean they rejected the mandate.
But even if you want to argue that Wasilla was some sinsiter, evil, women-hating community for not being on-board prior to to the State law, check it:
Let's look at some facts on crime in Wasilla, per their own police department web site.
Sexual assaults by years Palin was mayor (mind, the law went into affect in 2000!):
96: 3
97: 0
98: 1
99: 1
00: 7
01: 6
02: 8
Total: 26. That's a statistic of 4/year. And before the law? 5. That's slightly over ONE CASE per year.
And, mind, police reports of sexual assault do not necessarily indicate insertive, vaginal sex.
And, MORE importantly, aside from the "Wasilla/Detroit" fallacy -- these were the words of the then police chief -- not Sarah Palin herself. And there is no indication that they defied the State law. None.
Sarah Palin appointed this loudmouth? Sure. Was the practice he described in place before Gov. Knowles struck it down? Yes.
In no way am I attempting to undermine the severity of sexual assault, especially rape. Each of those numbers represents a woman (or man) who has been violated. Yet let's face the matter squarely: what we're seeing is a projection that this "small town" is now a giant municipality that is denying the poor women of America right to free access to a rape kit. Look at the matter with a clear eye, and see if this initiative was a compelling community need:
Did the community of Wasilla see a need for this social program? No. The median income for a small town of 5,500 in year 2000 had a median income of $48,000/year. We're not talking minimum wage inner-city. And we're talking about a practice that occurred before the state law took effect, and is something the Obama-Left cannot refute. Then-Mayor Palin, the Wasilla Police Department, and the City Council did not try to reject the State law.
The Obama-Left projects.
They project that Sarah Palin is against assisting rape victims, when Sarah Palin has no quotable record or policy on this position and complied with State law.
More to the point: a police chief says this is a tax burden. Not Sarah Palin.
Prior to 2000, this was not a salient topic for a small-town community.
It did not have public support for enforcement.
No one was denied, or charged heavily, for a rape kit, aside from Obama-Left un-cited anecdotes of:
"At one point in the past, Wasilla charged the costs to the victim's insurance company."
"One point in the past" can mean before Palin's tenure as mayor. Or it can be a fabrication, like so many anecdotes can be.
Wasilla, AK is not an urban community with impoverished areas that require this type of assistance to be on the books, no questions asked, prior to State mandate.
To expect otherwise shows the Obama-Left's hypocricy in calling Wasilla "bumfuck nowehere" on the one hand, and now expecting them to have social programs at the fore for the benefit of a non-existant "urban poor" on the other.
The smear is the smear. It says nothing about Sarah Palin.
And expect this one to go down the DKos memory hole like "Sambo" did.
6 comments:
How come you cannot spell "hypocrisy" or "nowhere" but you can spell "bumfuck"?
No one has claimed that Wasilla didn't comply with the state law.
In addition, the low number of rapes is borne out by the original article, which quoted the police chief as saying that the state law would cost the community $5K to
14K per year.
Your strawmen don't add up.
Not one single person has came forward and said they were billed for their rape kit. Talk about a strawman...
New evidence shows Palin cut the funds for rape kits after firing the Wasilla police chief and replacing him with Fannon.
http://tinyurl.com/4vu7z7
The USA Today confirms rape victims came forward to complain to the state they were charged for forensic evidence.
Fannon told the Frontiersman that the tests would cost the department up to $14,000 per year. If no one was being charged, why would the department now need to fork over that money?
http://tinyurl.com/56rwcf
Theotoks:
You are beyond the pale "new evidence"? It's a bunch of BUNK
Mr. Alperin-Sherriff's ENTIRE case against Sarah Palin in his article where he states she had a "DIRECT ROLE" in demanding payment of rape victims for rape kits rests on the fact that the Wasilla Police Department has budgeted a "contingency fund" account and that account was $7298 in 1998, and that account was reduced to $3000 in 1999. In 1998, $3454 dollars was spent using contingency fund account dollars, and in 1999, $205 dollars in contingency funds were spend. This, in Mr. Alperin-Sheriff's mind, in and of itself is apparently enough to smear a sitting governor and possible Vice President with the insinuation that not only did she support charging rape victims for their rape kits, she had a DIRECT ROLE in it.
Forgetting for a moment that Mr. Alperin-'Sheriff has provided NO proof whatsoever that a) the city of Wasilla ever charged ANY victim for a rape kit, and b) that the contingency fund account was ever used to pay for rape kits in the first place, consider the fact that IF in fact the contingency fund account WAS used to pay for rape kits, then logically, after the Alaska bill was passed requiring each police department to foot the bill for rape kits - this budget for this account should have then INCREASED. It didn't. in 2000, the budget for the account was $1,000. In 2001, the budget for the account was $500. There was NO increase.
Mr. Alperin-Sheriff, you owe Governor Palin an apology.
The claim doesn't rest on the existence of a "contingency account."
But nice try copying from Huffpo's comments! LOL! Too bad you didn't also read the response to that comment, which states:
"Actually,
A) The Wasilla Frontiersman article has the police chief admitting to the practice
B) Testimony to the Alaska state legislature confirms it was done by police departments in the Mat-Su Valley; in 2000, only Wasilla and Palmer HAD police departments, and Palmer confirmed that it never happened.
C) There were about 10 sexual assault reported per year, according to police departments
D) Wasilla's budget process involves the Mayor meeting with the department head to work out the budgets
I admit I was wrong on the fund, though. It was the contractual services line item that was used to pay for sexual assault exams, and I do have documentation on that (and the major cut it took in budgeting). I am in the process of writing this up. Thank you for your concern for accuracy, sir."
You are HILARIOUS!
The mayor hand-picked the sheriff and signed the budget that included the policy that rape victims will pay for their rape kits.
Either Palin was oblivious to the policy (is she really that stupid, y'think?) and signed a budget she didn't read and understand. Or she was such a wimp she could not control her own police chief.
Or, more likely, she agreed with the policy.
It's unnecessary to pursue rape victims and demand they produce evidence they were charged for their kits. The policy itself is repugnant. Were there a policy in place to lynch innocents --- even if it were not exercised --- it would still be a repugnant policy. Or do you think such a policy is okay?
Here's the report from CNN:
http://tinyurl.com/54xuoq
Post a Comment