Guess what Alaska city charged for rape exams?

  • and when you’ve guessed what city, guess when? - and then, take a wild stab at who was mayor at the time?

From the Frontiersman, dated May 22nd 2000:

Well, d’oh. Obviously no one in their right mind would speak in favor of billing a rape victim for the exam. Well, yeah…

This was in 2000. It was necessary to pass a fucking law to make it clear to the cave-dwellers in Wasilla and elsewhere that, no, evidence-gathering does not come with a bill, just because it happens to take place in a hospital.:mad:

That’s horrible. Why on EARTH did Senator McCain choose Fannon to be his running mate?

Oh, wait, he choose Sarah Palin, whose name is not mentioned in the article. Nor have we anything to indicate one way or the other whether charging rape victims for their exams was her call or not. It’s conceivable that it wasn’t; there are certainly municipalities in which the police chief is largely autonomous of the mayor.

When did the policy begin?

It’s clear the policy ENDED in 2002, when Sarah Palin was mayor.

Who created the policy?

Just how common is rape in this town of 9,000 that rape exams are burdening the taxpayers?

Or are the police in charge of drumming up revenue?

You did happen to read the part where oit said the Governor had to sign a figgin’ law to make it happen. Now I agree that it is hard to determine what Palin knew and when she knew it, but it is a contemptible policy no matter who is responsible.

On the other hand…

Checking the Wasilla city code, available hereabouts, reveals the following:

Stupid intellectual honesty. Life is easier in IMHO, where I can be all evil & stuff.

I have no idea who created the policy - does it matter?

It was effective while Palin was mayor (1996-2002, IIRC). It was ended in 2000 thanks to a law passed in the state legislature. Over the protests of Palin’s appointed chief of police.

These are facts.

This is not an unreasonable question. If the policy did not actually begin under Palin’s tenure, then she might be excused for allowing it to continue, especially given the inertia that tends to characterize government.

This is disingenuous in its implication that Palin had something to do with the cessation of the policy.

As Gangster Octopus notes, the policy was only ended by legislation enacted at the state level, and signed by the Governor of Alaska.

This is probably an important question, although given the prominence of Sarah Palin right now, perhaps the more relevant question is: How long did this policy remain in force on her watch? We know it ended in 2000 (under state-level legislation), but it’s not clear whether it was enacted during her term as mayor.

Citing the Wasilla city code in contradiction of your original post? This is the pit! At least say something insulting about my mother.

In all fairness, just the fact that it was Palin’s chief of police doesn’t mean she agreed w/his statement. And, which Chief of POlice was it, the one she canned or the guy that replaced said canned chief (assuming I’m remembering correctly that one of the scandals following her has to do w/canning her Chief of POlice)

Fannon was, i believe, the police chief that Palin herself appointed, after firing the previous guy.

I’m only evil in IMHO, CS, and occasionally MPSIMS. When I’m wrong, I admit it.

I might point out, though, that your original argument would have been stronger with more details. Still lacking is evidence that Gov. Palin approved of the policy any way other than implicitly, or that the policy began under her watch.

Of course, she still should explain her thinking on the issue. I can imagine her coming into office and not knowing about the policy right away; “Do we make rape victims pay for their own examinations & evidence gathering?” is not a question any new mayor would think to ask. But having to be forced into a change by the state legislature seems odd.

A Lexis-Nexis search brings up this short piece from 1997:

What is the incidence of rape in Wasilla, Alaska?

I am searching for that right now. It occurs to me, however, that, since the police chief felt obliged to oppose the legislation on budgetary grounds (and since someone complained about the situation in the first place), there are likely enough rapes that paying for the examination is an issue.

Still haven’t found specifics for Wasilla, but according to this site, the statewide incidence of rape for Alaska in 2000 was 70.3 per 100,000 inhabitants. In the 2000 census, the town had a population of 5469, according to Wikipedia. Assuming those facts are correct and that Wasilla is typical, that comes to about 3 a year.

I have to go do some actual work now. When I come out of this meeting I’ll try to get some better stats, if anyone gives a damn.

Good guess!

http://www.city-data.com/city/Wasilla-Alaska.html

For those that don’t care enough to click -
2001 2 rapes
2002 2
2003 1
2004 1
2005 3

2006 and 2007 aren’t listed.

Well, the other night in her speech Palin said that being a mayor is “sort of like being a ‘community organizer’, except that you have actual responsibilities!” So, since she was so responsible, I’m not inclined to cut her slack on this matter. (Although a big part of the Republican MO at the top, in the current adminstration, has been to use “responsibility” as a meaningless word, without ever accepting any kind of accountability.)

Since Palin would like to force rape victims to carry their rapists’ babies to term, maybe she really doesn’t think it’s worth spending much public money on rape cases.

Just in case you think this situation is unique to Wasilla, Ak, here’s a news story annoucing the end of the practice of billing rape victims for their exams in North Carolina. news story Note that in North Carolina, victims with insurance will still be billed for their exams under their insurance policy.

Date of news story? August 14 2008.

I apologize. I meant to convey this sentiment:

Yes, Sarah Palin was involved, in that she was mayor while the policy was ongoing, since it ended in 2002.

I didn’t mean to suggest that she had anything to do with ending it, but my sentence could indeed be read that way.

Agreed. And I’ll certainly come out now and say that if it began under her watch, that’s disgraceful. (Well, it’s disgraceful no matter who began it, but it’s disgraceful FOR HER if it began under her terms.)