Organizing for America | FRESHCHAOS for OBAMA: Paying for RAPE KITS

Paying for RAPE KITS

By Jeff Hartzer - Sep 19th, 2008 at 12:45 pm EDT

Also listed in: 5 groups

Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

Tags: rape_kits

This article originally written by 2nd Lt. FUBAR at FRESHCHAOS.com (09/19/08)

Paying for RAPE KITS
Last week USA Today published the story, "Palin's town used to bill victims for rape kits". The Palin camp has denied being part of this insulting practice, but The Huffington Post obtained Wasilla budget documents that prove then-Mayor Palin had a direct hand in charging victims for their rape kits. That is, until the Alaska state legislature and governor passed a law in 2000 ensuring that sexual assault victims receive forensic exams free of charge.

What does this all mean now? For starters, Gov. Palin is not pro-woman and anti-crime. But she's not alone. Sen. McCain voted against federal legislation designed to protect victims, the Violence Against Women Act, sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden and originally signed into law by President Clinton in 1994, and reauthorized in 2000 and 2005. Sen. McCain voted against VAWA twice, including in 2005, when the Act's expansion included the requirement that states provide rape exams free of charge. Sen. Obama was one of the co-sponsors. President Bush signed the new VAWA into law in January 2006. (See, he's not all bad.)

And in Illinois an amendment to the Crime Victims Compensation Act was passed in 2001, co-sponsored by then-state Senator Obama, ensuring the victims of violent crimes are reimbursed for expenses incurred. (See RH Reality Check)

To be ... uh ... fair, there are those who see VAWA as "emasculating" and Senators Biden and Obama and traitors to the male cause. (Feel free to google them yourselves.) Meanwhile, we at FreschChaos HQ are 100% against charging rape victims for their rape kits and can't help but wonder what would motivate anyone to propose and defend this practice.

Well, there is the cost, $500-$1200 in Alaska in 2000, according to most sources. That's enough to prohibit many a freshly traumatized woman and man from submitting to the time-sensitive and invasive exam right there. Rape is a very difficult crime to prove and almost impossible without a positive rape kit. So, in addition to saving taxpayers money, you might just intimidate rape victims into not prosecuting and thereby lower your crime statistics, if not your town's actual crime rate. Looks good on paper.

Except not in Wasilla. According to Conservative Truths: "Conservative states" have higher forcible rape rates than "liberal states." The state with the highest rate of Forcible Rape in the country is, yes, Alaska. And according to Wasilla's Crime Stats during Palin's time as Mayor, the town of 5469 people (in 2000) had 10-18 rapes a year. That works out to a Forcible Rape rate approximately twice that for Alaska. It's apparently not good to be a woman in Wasilla - unless you're Sarah Palin.

And if you're so crass as to defend this practice by saying they were charging the victims' insurance when possible, then I ask you to consider what happens when your health insurance "pays" for your procedures. If you're like me, you pay anything from 20% to 100% of the cost, depending on whether or not you've met your deductible for the year. Also, if you're like me back in 2005, your insurance might just drop you completely once asked to cover this type of "unanticipated expense."

So, how about we really save money and charge the families of possible murder victims for the collection of evidence in those cases? Or maybe Palin and the Wasilla Police believe rape victims are at least partially responsible for being raped. Sarah Palin claims she believes in the Bible as the literal word of God. And in that Good Book women who are raped are punished in various ways, including death by stoning. If they're "lucky" they get to marry their attacker.

Or, maybe, as has been suggested by some bloggers, it's all about the line-item in the rape kit that includes money for emergency contraception. So zygote rights over that of a crime victim?

Any questions as to why the National Organization of Women endorsed Obama-Biden? Incidentally, it's the first time they've endorsed a Presidential campaign since Mondale-Ferrarro 24 years ago. (For those of you with short memories, that's Geraldine Ferrarro, the first-ever woman on a major party ticket.)

Reader Comments	Comments RSS
Comments are closed for this post.

No comments have been written yet.

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.