PDA

View Full Version : Elections Sarah Palin, and rape kits.


Direckshun
09-17-2008, 04:34 PM
One of the best writers on the web, Hillary Bok of Obsidian Wings, posts a devastating review (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/09/priorities.html) of Palin's record on sexual abuse in Alaska. I won't bother posting it here because I doubt many will read it -- but you're welcome to click on it.

Now, before anything is addressed, it's important to note two things.

1. Sarah Palin's primary credentials, according to herself, are her pro-life, small town, good ol' family values.

2. Alaska is one of the most dangerous places in the country to live, in terms of sexual abuse, especially forcible rapes.

Now, Sarah Palin, by no means imaginable, is responsible for this. This problem existed long before she was even elected in Wasilla, much less before she became the governor of the state.

But if you're a family values, female, head executive like Palin was when she was governor... do you make this issue, one of the biggest black stains on your state's reputation, a prominent issue for you to address?

I would absolutely say so, and I defy anybody to disagree.

And thanks to oil revenues (in billions of $$$), Alaska had one of the country's most handsome revenues to direct such resources. Every day, thousands of dollars from oil revenues poured into Palin's budget and sat there waiting to be utilized. What did she do on this particular issue? Literally nothing was stopping her.

Not much. The only thing on her gubernatorial record is an attempt.

Her Department of Public Safety were devising a huge, multi-million $$$ bill to address the issue, but it got tabled in July for reasons that are not noted anywhere online. And nobody knows just how permanent that tabling would be -- of course it doesn't help that the chief proponent of the bill was Walter Monagan, a name that should be really familiar right now.

Anyway, so we don't know why the only thing she's tried as governor to reduce sexual abuse has stalled, but we can track Palin down to her time as mayor of Wasilla. And that's where we run into a true head-scratcher.

Sarah Palin, as mayor of Wasilla, charged rape victims for their rape kits, which are medical and psychological supplies that cities provide in shelters. If anybody knows someone who's had to use one, they can cost a couple hundred dollars.

Again, I am not blaming Palin for high rape rates in Alaska.

But why do this? What do you gain?

If you are a family values female mayor in a state with the highest rapes-per-capita in the country, why do you charge victims for rape kits? What's the point behind that?

Garcia Bronco
09-17-2008, 04:36 PM
No one ever got charged for a rape kit.

Direckshun
09-17-2008, 04:38 PM
No one ever got charged for a rape kit.

I would appreciate a link, because I don't want to unjustly smear her on this issue.

Garcia Bronco
09-17-2008, 04:40 PM
I would appreciate a link, because I don't want to unjustly smear her on this issue.

Not only did no one get charged, but evidence was always collected. I don't have the link, nor the time to look it up. This has been posted her before.

Direckshun
09-17-2008, 04:40 PM
No one ever got charged for a rape kit.

By the way, the law Alaska passed that banned charging victims for rape kits was passed in 2000, four years into Palin's term as mayor.

So if that's what you're pointing to, you're wrong.

Direckshun
09-17-2008, 04:42 PM
Not only did no one get charged, but evidence was always collected. I don't have the link, nor the time to look it up. This has been posted her before.

Here's my evidence (http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136) -- online documents from the city of Wasilla itself. During Palin's tenure, Wasilla cut funds that had previously paid for the medical exams and began charging victims (or their health insurers) the $500 to $1200 fees.

Rebuttal?

Silock
09-17-2008, 04:42 PM
There are a lot of factors that could be responsible for this. One, does she have control over the budget? Two, what IS the budget? Three, what role do the hospitals have to play in this? Four, were there any external factors such as county statutes that had to be followed?

There are a lot of questions that must be answered before you can just place blame on one person for something that is not seemingly justifiable.

Taco John
09-17-2008, 04:42 PM
*sigh*

Direckshun
09-17-2008, 04:44 PM
This slash of the budget, by the way, was committed by police chief Charlie Fannon, who Palin directly appointed after firing Irl Stambaugh.

So, yeah. Rebuttal?

banyon
09-17-2008, 04:44 PM
Yeah, I think I did this already and was called foul things for daring to criticize her policy.

banyon
09-17-2008, 04:45 PM
Ah, here it is:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=191399

Garcia Bronco
09-17-2008, 04:46 PM
Here's my evidence (http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136) -- online documents from the city of Wasilla itself. During Palin's tenure, Wasilla cut funds that had previously paid for the medical exams and began charging victims (or their health insurers) the $500 to $1200 fees.

Rebuttal?


Maybe they had buget problems. You are talking about a town of 5000 people. Very, very small.

Direckshun
09-17-2008, 04:47 PM
There are a lot of factors that could be responsible for this. One, does she have control over the budget? Two, what IS the budget? Three, what role do the hospitals have to play in this? Four, were there any external factors such as county statutes that had to be followed?

There are a lot of questions that must be answered before you can just place blame on one person for something that is not seemingly justifiable.

I'm simply blaming Palin for the police chief that she appointed slashing budgets for exams and putting the price on the victims.

If there's a county statutes, there were none that I know of. If there were hospital regulations, you can pass an ordinance to change that. As a local mayor, she does have influence over the local budget. And it doesn't matter what the budget is, unless you're in a Second Great Depression, rape kits should always be on the taxpayer, not a helpless victim.

Direckshun
09-17-2008, 04:48 PM
Maybe they had budget problems. You are talking about a town of 5000 people. Very, very small.

So now you've gone from "this has been flatly refuted" to "well what do you know, mister."

That said, this explanation is possible. But that's a hell of a thing to strike off the budget if that's the case, in the most rape-trodden state in the country by a female mayor.

Garcia Bronco
09-17-2008, 04:50 PM
So now you've gone from "this has been flatly refuted" to "well what do you know, mister."

That said, this explanation is possible. But that's a hell of a thing to strike off the budget if that's the case, in the most rape-trodden state in the country by a female mayor.


Alaska may have a high per-capita rate, but that doesn't mean Wasilla did. Still though, it's not like the police waited for a check before they performed the test.

Silock
09-17-2008, 04:50 PM
I'm simply blaming Palin for the police chief that she appointed slashing budgets for exams and putting the price on the victims.

If there's a county statutes, there were none that I know of. If there were hospital regulations, you can pass an ordinance to change that. As a local mayor, she does have influence over the local budget. And it doesn't matter what the budget is, unless you're in a Second Great Depression, rape kits should always be on the taxpayer, not a helpless victim.

Mayors SOMETIMES have control over local budget, but many times, they do not. If that was the police chief, then so be it.

Again, what external factors were involved? Did they cut funding for rape kits to provide basic fire protection? So they could afford to hire police officers?

I'm not saying that it isn't wrong, but as an administrator, you sometimes have to make extremely tough decisions that ultimately benefit the community. We are talking about a VERY small town here.

mikey23545
09-17-2008, 04:52 PM
Palin has you pissing down your leg, doesn't she? ROFL

Direckshun
09-17-2008, 04:52 PM
Alaska may have a high per-capita rate, but that doesn't mean Wasilla did. Still though, it's not like the police waited for a check before they performed the test.

Your entire argument is built on assumptions that give Palin every benefit of the doubt. Do so at your peril.

I'm not here claiming Palin likes rape. I'm just extensively continuing to highlight instances of Palin's executive history where extraordinarily incompetent mishaps occurred.

Garcia Bronco
09-17-2008, 04:56 PM
Your entire argument is built on assumptions that give Palin every benefit of the doubt. Do so at your peril.

I'm not here claiming Palin likes rape. I'm just extensively continuing to highlight instances of Palin's executive history where extraordinarily incompetent mishaps occurred.


What I am saying is that you have no idea why admins do what they do because you are not armed with the entire picture. I don't consider this a mishap. It's not what I would do, but I recognize that decisions have to made, and sometimes they are very tough. Maybe Wasilla had a number of false claims and it was creating financial problems, but again, no one waited for a check before the test was administered.

Direckshun
09-17-2008, 04:56 PM
Mayors SOMETIMES have control over local budget, but many times, they do not. If that was the police chief, then so be it.

Again, what external factors were involved? Did they cut funding for rape kits to provide basic fire protection? So they could afford to hire police officers?

I think that's a fair take. But again, the police chief cut the funds, a police chief that she personally appointed. She has influence over this, and bears the responsibility for the chief's actions.

IF THIS WAS THE CASE, where you're cutting the budget for rape kits so you can increase the budget for fire protection, than Palin has not made that argument (her spokespersons have merely feigned outrage), nor do Wasilla's own online documents support that conclusion.

My own personal belief is that Palin asked Charlie Fannon to go overboard on cutting things because the town was sinking deeper and deeper into debt. But I think that's an insanely incompetent thing to do. That's just my suspicion, though.

Silock
09-17-2008, 05:01 PM
I think that's a fair take. But again, the police chief cut the funds, a police chief that she personally appointed. She has influence over this, and bears the responsibility for the chief's actions.

IF THIS WAS THE CASE, where you're cutting the budget for rape kits so you can increase the budget for fire protection, than Palin has not made that argument (her spokespersons have merely feigned outrage), nor do Wasilla's own online documents support that conclusion.

My own personal belief is that Palin asked Charlie Fannon to go overboard on cutting things because the town was sinking deeper and deeper into debt. But I think that's an insanely incompetent thing to do. That's just my suspicion, though.

And there's the point . . . it's what you want to believe versus what we actually know. Rape is a terrible, terrible thing, but there are worse things in life than having to pay for a rape kit if it means other basic needs are being taken care of. Yeah, paying for that SUCKS, but we don't know what other factors led to that decision.

EDIT: I'm not saying you're WRONG, I'm simply saying we don't know and it would be a mistake to presume.

Direckshun
09-17-2008, 05:05 PM
And there's the point . . . it's what you want to believe versus what we actually know. Rape is a terrible, terrible thing, but there are worse things in life than having to pay for a rape kit if it means other basic needs are being taken care of. Yeah, paying for that SUCKS, but we don't know what other factors led to that decision.

EDIT: I'm not saying you're WRONG, I'm simply saying we don't know and it would be a mistake to presume.

I'm not presuming. I have my own assumptions but those assumptions are not verified by evidence. What goes on behind closed doors never is.

What I do know, and what is factual, is that Palin hired Fannon and one of Fannon's first initiatives was to slash rape kits from the budget and charge the victims.

Now, that is devastating, and there is next-to-nothing to suggest that in an annual budget of $1,145,753 (yeah, I looked it up), you can't squeeze in something on behalf of the city for innocent, helpless rape victims.

The only things I can think of that would justify that don't show up in the 80+ page budget, Silock. There were no emergency "our school burnt down" funds, nor some magical increased spending on fire department equipment or stuff like that.

Direckshun
09-17-2008, 05:07 PM
What I am saying is that you have no idea why admins do what they do because you are not armed with the entire picture. I don't consider this a mishap. It's not what I would do, but I recognize that decisions have to made, and sometimes they are very tough. Maybe Wasilla had a number of false claims and it was creating financial problems, but again, no one waited for a check before the test was administered.

I understand that. There are definite unknowables here.

But what would justify cutting rape kits? Think of a few hypotheticals.

The only thing I can think of is that there is a major emergency like a local hospital or school burnt down, and that is not reflected at all in the budget.

Silock
09-17-2008, 05:16 PM
I'm not presuming. I have my own assumptions but those assumptions are not verified by evidence. What goes on behind closed doors never is.

What I do know, and what is factual, is that Palin hired Fannon and one of Fannon's first initiatives was to slash rape kits from the budget and charge the victims.

Now, that is devastating, and there is next-to-nothing to suggest that in an annual budget of $1,145,753 (yeah, I looked it up), you can't squeeze in something on behalf of the city for innocent, helpless rape victims.

The only things I can think of that would justify that don't show up in the 80+ page budget, Silock. There were no emergency "our school burnt down" funds, nor some magical increased spending on fire department equipment or stuff like that.

Ironically, it's not that stuff that's the problem. It's all of the little things that add up. And a $1m budget is very, very small.

Direckshun
09-17-2008, 05:19 PM
Ironically, it's not that stuff that's the problem. It's all of the little things that add up. And a $1m budget is very, very small.

So to summarize, and I understand I'm arguing with a Ron Paul supporter here, you can personally imagine non-emergency situations where charging innocent rape victims for their rape kits is permissable?

I'd just like you on the record, more than anything.

Guru
09-17-2008, 05:31 PM
*sigh*
agreed

Silock
09-17-2008, 05:45 PM
So to summarize, and I understand I'm arguing with a Ron Paul supporter here, you can personally imagine non-emergency situations where charging innocent rape victims for their rape kits is permissable?

I'd just like you on the record, more than anything.

There are plenty of non-emergency situations that are more important than whether or not you charged for a rape kit, such as maintaining basic public safety and security. What's the point of paying for rape kits if you don't have officers out there able to enforce the laws? I'm not definitively saying that that was the case. I'm saying we don't know.

Again, I'm not even saying that it's RIGHT to charge people for rape kits, because it's not. But understand that when budget time came, there may not have been a choice. When it comes down to it, there are 85,000 governments in this country, and they all have their own laws and statutes. In the case of Missouri vs. Jenkins there's this:

"An educational desegregation suit that was not
overturned by the Supreme Court for nearly 18 years, a district court in Missouri mandated that
local elected officials pursue a variety of costly improvements to school facilities. These
included ensuring that all classrooms had air conditioning, an alarm system, and 15
microcomputers; a 2,000-square-foot planetarium; and animal rooms in all elementary classes for
use in a zoo project (Missouri v. Jenkins 1995)."

So, even in looking at the budget and saying "Wow, animal rooms for a zoo project is more important than providing X service to the community?" you have to realize that some administrators may not have a choice in whether or not they must supply these things.

All I'm saying is that I highly doubt Palin went "Haha! I know how we can stick it to these rape victims! That'll teach them!" I'm saying that she may have had to make a tough choice. Then again, maybe she's a cold, heartless bitch. The point is that I'm not familiar enough with all the statutes and laws in that area to say with ANY kind of expertise whether that's the case or not.

Mecca
09-17-2008, 05:48 PM
*sigh*

What upset that her popularity is already waning due to the stupid shit she's done?

Direckshun
09-17-2008, 05:53 PM
There are plenty of non-emergency situations that are more important than whether or not you charged for a rape kit, such as maintaining basic public safety and security. What's the point of paying for rape kits if you don't have officers out there able to enforce the laws? I'm not definitively saying that that was the case. I'm saying we don't know.

Again, I'm not even saying that it's RIGHT to charge people for rape kits, because it's not. But understand that when budget time came, there may not have been a choice. When it comes down to it, there are 85,000 governments in this country, and they all have their own laws and statutes. In the case of Missouri vs. Jenkins there's this:

"An educational desegregation suit that was not
overturned by the Supreme Court for nearly 18 years, a district court in Missouri mandated that
local elected officials pursue a variety of costly improvements to school facilities. These
included ensuring that all classrooms had air conditioning, an alarm system, and 15
microcomputers; a 2,000-square-foot planetarium; and animal rooms in all elementary classes for
use in a zoo project (Missouri v. Jenkins 1995)."

So, even in looking at the budget and saying "Wow, animal rooms for a zoo project is more important than providing X service to the community?" you have to realize that some administrators may not have a choice in whether or not they must supply these things.

All I'm saying is that I highly doubt Palin went "Haha! I know how we can stick it to these rape victims! That'll teach them!" I'm saying that she may have had to make a tough choice. Then again, maybe she's a cold, heartless bitch. The point is that I'm not familiar enough with all the statutes and laws in that area to say with ANY kind of expertise whether that's the case or not.

I actually don't think she's a cold, heartless bitch. I just think she's incompetent.

I scoured the budget statement that she herself signed off on, and there were no "!!!!" moments where it was obvious where the money had to be allocated to. And I can only think of a few things that hold priority for a small town mayor over providing rape kits free-of-charge.

Because rape is a heinous act that is even more frequent in Alaska than anywhere else in the country, you can understand why this is such a big issue for a values-promoting woman politician.

Silock
09-17-2008, 06:35 PM
Of course, but just because something doesn't immediately jump out and say "I'M A WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY! OVER HERE!" doesn't mean that there's not a law or order that mandates where certain monies go.

I understand that it's a big issue, but I'm not entirely certain you can just pin the blame on her for this. There are much better places to go headhunting, IMO.

And it's not like anyone in this thread is voting for her, anyway, nor are you really likely to change anyone's mind about her at this point.

gblowfish
09-19-2008, 02:58 PM
http://www.236.com/video/2008/get_your_war_on_sarah_palin_an_9028.php

patteeu
09-19-2008, 05:11 PM
So we're supposed to find fault with a conservative woman who has able to achieve an 80+% approval rating while refusing to pander to a special interest group that is about as sympthetic as possible by defying her small government principles and giving all rape victims, regardless of their ability to pay, a government handout in the form of a rape kit? Nah. This kind of thing doesn't bother people who recognize that government isn't supposed to do/provide everything for you.

Ultra Peanut
09-19-2008, 05:13 PM
"She's really done a lot of work on oil and gas, but when it comes to violence against women and children. . . we haven't been on her radar as a priority," said Peggy Brown, executive director of the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault.She's a feminist. She's too busy for things like this.

patteeu
09-19-2008, 05:16 PM
...

What I do know, and what is factual, is that Palin hired Fannon and one of Fannon's first initiatives was to slash rape kits from the budget and charge the victims.

Now, that is devastating, ...

But yet, the voters in her own town and state haven't been turned off by it. Hmmm. Maybe it isn't devastating.

Direckshun
09-19-2008, 07:45 PM
So we're supposed to find fault with a conservative woman who has able to achieve an 80+% approval rating while refusing to pander to a special interest group that is about as sympthetic as possible by defying her small government principles and giving all rape victims, regardless of their ability to pay, a government handout in the form of a rape kit? Nah. This kind of thing doesn't bother people who recognize that government isn't supposed to do/provide everything for you.

I can't help but think you obviously don't think shilling out a few pennies from your paycheck for innocent rape victims is a worthwhile venture.

That's your perogative and everything, but that tends to betray the concept of "family values" that you Palin supporters tend to boast about, to say nothing of common human decency.

Direckshun
09-19-2008, 07:46 PM
But yet, the voters in her own town and state haven't been turned off by it. Hmmm. Maybe it isn't devastating.

I believe it's devastating morally.

patteeu
09-19-2008, 07:53 PM
I can't help but think you obviously don't think shilling out a few pennies from your paycheck for innocent rape victims is a worthwhile venture.

That's your perogative and everything, but that tends to betray the concept of "family values" that you Palin supporters tend to boast about, to say nothing of common human decency.

I'm sure that Gov. Palin and I would have some differences on the family values front. I'm personally not against paying for rape kits as a normal part of the cost of evidence collection, but it's nowhere near the kind of issue that would influence my opinion of the Governor. If you think this is a "devastating" issue, you and I are pretty far apart here.

patteeu
09-19-2008, 07:54 PM
I believe it's devastating morally.

OK, whatever.

VAChief
09-19-2008, 07:56 PM
I'm sure that Gov. Palin and I would have some differences on the family values front. I'm personally not against paying for rape kits as a normal part of the cost of evidence collection, but it's nowhere near the kind of issue that would influence my opinion of the Governor. If you think this is a "devastating" issue, you and I are pretty far apart here.

Maybe she was hoping Pastor Muthee would lay hands on the victims and cleanse them.

Shaid
09-20-2008, 12:53 PM
Maybe they had buget problems. You are talking about a town of 5000 people. Very, very small.

She was able to spend $50,000 for renovating her office but couldn't provide rape kits for victims? Yes, her priorities are right where they should be.:rolleyes:

J Diddy
09-20-2008, 01:08 PM
She was able to spend $50,000 for renovating her office but couldn't provide rape kits for victims? Yes, her priorities are right where they should be.:rolleyes:

To her defense, how are you gonna govern properly in a drab uninspiring office?

Ari Chi3fs
09-20-2008, 04:18 PM
**** yeah! Road trip to Alaska!!

Do you like Roofie Colada's?
And getting caught in the rain?

unlurking
09-21-2008, 09:39 AM
As far as I'm concerned, let insurance cover it. It is a medical exam after all.

Why don't you guys hurry up and push through your socialist health care programs so rape victims can go stand in line to see a candy striper. That should fix all our problems.

banyon
09-21-2008, 09:48 AM
As far as I'm concerned, let insurance cover it. It is a medical exam after all.

Yeah, but this decision was made knowing that people weren't covered and/or that deductibles would have to be paid.

RINGLEADER
09-21-2008, 10:38 AM
Yeah, but this decision was made knowing that people weren't covered and/or that deductibles would have to be paid.

First of all, as you point out, I don't think there is any evidence that Palin was responsible for this law or adopting a position that could cause a victim to hesitate in coming forward (which I would agree with BTW). Secondly, the law that Tony Knowles signed in 2000 was actually challenged by the Wasilla police chief because he wanted the criminals responsible for the crime to have the costs included as part of their sentencing (which seems to make more sense then the law that the Dem signed which made it the responsiblity of the taxpayers - whether to conform to the VAWA or because he thought it was the right thing to do) as evidenced in the same story that is being used to hang this on Palin (http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt)

Do you have evidence that this, in fact, didn't occur? I assume you do based on your last post and I'm not claiming that it didn't happen. But the portrayal of Palin being an advocate for this just isn't borne out by the facts.

Also, not to diminish the issue, but it's not exactly like this was a policy exclusive to Wasilla or Alaska. If you're going to politically blame Palin for the practice maybe you should also blame Obama for not being more forceful in seeing that the same practice wasn't employed in Illinois. According to US News and World Report case workers handling the issue in the state are still seeing the practice of billing rape victims for the costs associated with the exams (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-health-and-money/2008/2/21/rape-victims-can-be-hurt-financially-too.html).

banyon
09-21-2008, 10:45 AM
Secondly, the law that Tony Knowles signed in 2000 was actually challenged by the Wasilla police chief because he wanted the criminals responsible for the crime to have the costs included as part of their sentencing (which seems to make more sense then the law that the Dem signed which made it the responsiblity of the taxpayers - whether to conform to the VAWA or because he thought it was the right thing to do) as evidenced in the same story that is being used to hang this on Palin (http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt)

Yeah, I get orders saying that criminals have to pay the costs for things a lot of the time too. They always pay promptly and the entire amount. :D I will recommend that you don't try to make your fortune collecting debts from criminals. At any rate, the taxpayers are going to necessarily going to be involved, unless you wants victims and/or insurance to pay.

Do you have evidence that this, in fact, didn't occur? I assume you do based on your last post and I'm not claiming that it didn't happen. But the portrayal of Palin being an advocate for this just isn't borne out by the facts.

The evidence I am aware of I posted in my very similar thread from a while back.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=191399&highlight=palin+rape

Also, not to diminish the issue, but it's not exactly like this was a policy exclusive to Wasilla or Alaska. If you're going to politically blame Palin for the practice maybe you should also blame Obama for not being more forceful in seeing that the same practice wasn't employed in Illinois. According to US News and World Report case workers handling the issue in the state are still seeing the practice of billing rape victims for the costs associated with the exams (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-health-and-money/2008/2/21/rape-victims-can-be-hurt-financially-too.html).

I don't think Obama took an active role in overturning protections that previously existed did he?

RINGLEADER
09-22-2008, 10:44 AM
Yeah, I get orders saying that criminals have to pay the costs for things a lot of the time too. They always pay promptly and the entire amount. :D I will recommend that you don't try to make your fortune collecting debts from criminals. At any rate, the taxpayers are going to necessarily going to be involved, unless you wants victims and/or insurance to pay.

It may take awhile to enforce but if you get a criminal judgment against you I suspect you'd be paying it.

The evidence I am aware of I posted in my very similar thread from a while back.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=191399&highlight=palin+rape

Hmm. I don't see the quote from Palin saying this was her idea or that she was even aware of the practice. I've read the article that you posted on that thread about her signing off on the budget but can you show me the line item where it shows that the costs of the rape kit are being moved to the victims? Or any proof that she saw an earlier budget from before the practice was put into effect? I suspect the law enforcement budget didn't have a line-item for it nor do I suspect that Palin was trolling through the line-items of the law enforcement department. Fact is the Huffington articles make some rather large leaps absent such evidence.

I don't think Obama took an active role in overturning protections that previously existed did he?

Didn't say he did. Just said that the laws in place in IL weren't followed and, according to this article that was written before the issue was hung on Palin, victims of rape in IL are charged for the costs of the kit.

RaiderH8r
09-22-2008, 02:25 PM
By cutting it from the city budget the hospitals then wrote the costs off and passed them on to medicaid/medicare or took the tax writeoff for capital losses. Either way it was passing the budgetary buck up the line to the state or the Feds, who, not incidentally, have much larger budgets.

Of course I'm speculating but a lot of rural towns use some budget finagling of some sort.

Garcia Bronco
09-22-2008, 02:50 PM
She was able to spend $50,000 for renovating her office but couldn't provide rape kits for victims? Yes, her priorities are right where they should be.:rolleyes:


You don't even know what she spent 50 grand on. For all you know she got the office wired for ethernet and some furniture.

RINGLEADER
09-23-2008, 12:08 AM
Well the word out tonight is that Wasilla has no record of anyone ever be charged for, or any money ever being received from, the use of rape kits during the time that Sarah Palin was mayor.

Oops.

If this turns out to be the case I guess the MSM should have, you know, actually called someone before running with a story that never had any legs.