Can anyone believe that Palin passed a law to bill rapist victims the kits that they used to test to the rape victims? http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10- rape-exams_N.htm

Comments

• At any time, Palin could have issued an executive order forbidding the practice. In my opinion, the fact that she did't speaks volumes.

  • Report
  

  by Dr_Dredd on September 17th, 2008

• executive order?
  
  do checks and balances mean nothing to you?

  • Report
  

  by jehan60188 on September 17th, 2008

• Thank you, I'm perfectly aware of checks and balances. However, administrative matters do not always require legislative action. Otherwise we'd be voting on things like what type of soda machine to put in Congress's staff lounge. Major changes to written law require legislation; internal department "matters" don't.
  
  We're seeing plenty of examples of this on the federal level. Look at what the Bush administration is doing with the EPA. I'm not saying this level of legislative power is a good thing, but that's the way it is.

  • Report
  

  by Dr_Dredd on September 17th, 2008

• that's exactly what you're saying- that abuse (that's what the bush regime is doing, abusing) of executive powers is something that "could have [been done] [to forbid] the practice"
  
  bush got away with abusing power by starting with small things in which others supported him; simply because a dictator seems benevolent today, that's not nearly enough reason to give him power over you tommorrow

  • Report
  

  by jehan60188 on September 17th, 2008

Comments

• First, I think you are spending too much time listening to liberal propaganda. Palin and Bush are two different people, and neither have ever endorsed legislation that would require rape victims to pay for testing kits. Second, what agency did Bush abuse his discretion with?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 17th, 2008

• First of all, I'm not sure what liberal propaganda there is. Second, I brought up Bush as an example of someone exercising executive power. Someone else started talking about abuse of discretion.
  
  Third, regarding rape victim kits. I know that Palin didn't endorse legislation requiring victims to pay for kits. She just never exercised her discretion to stop her own police chief from doing so.

  • Report
  

  by Dr_Dredd on September 17th, 2008

• As for propaganda, you can start with the article asked about in this question. And what evidence do you rely on to reach the conclusion that Palin "never exercised her discretion to stop her own police chief from doing so"?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 17th, 2008

• She didn't. The legislature had to step in and make it a state law that rape victims were not to be asked to pay for their own tests. Not propaganda, but a simple fact.

  • Report
  

  by Dr_Dredd on September 17th, 2008

• Let me rephrase. Other than your personal bias, what evidence do you have that: 1) Palin knew about the law/policy, 2)had the power to act, and 3) failed to act?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 17th, 2008

• I was using this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html
  
  Have I interviewed primary sources and sifted through old archives myself? Obviously not. But let me flip it around. If she didn't know about the policy, what does that say about her ability as an executive? Like Truman said, the buck gotta stop somewhere. If she didn't have the power to act, and her executive ability was limited, then she can't tout that extensive experience. And as for proof of her not acting, I repeat that it took a legislative effort for the policy to be changed.

  • Report
  

  by Dr_Dredd on September 17th, 2008

• First, remember our little discussion about liberal propaganda? Well this source is the epitome of such. This article concluded that because a line item called "contingency special" was reduced in 1999, that must mean that that line item paid for rape kits, and the Palin was therefore aware of this. Of course, the budget and financial report does not specify what is paid for with the contingency budget. Moreover, if we assume (as your article did) that the fund was solely for rape kits, then you get a wholly illogical deflation scenario.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 18th, 2008

• Let’s look at some facts. The number of sexual assaults in Wasilla from 1994 to 1999 was 8,5,11,18,10, and 10 (respectively). The actual expenditures of the “contingency budget” in the same period was $9097.43, $5731.24, $10363.08, $11624.99, $3454.20, and $205.46 (respectively). This would mean that the cost of a rape kit in 1994 was $1137.18. In 1995 it went up to $1146.25. And then from 1996-1998 it rapidly dropped ($942.10, $645.83, and $345.42).

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 18th, 2008

• Why did the cost of rape kits have such high deflation when the cost of medicine in the same period suffered massive inflation? Well, the logical conclusion is that the “contingency budget” is not for rape kits. Of course, we cannot verify where those funds actually went (which is probably why the article chose that line item). Moreover, the city did search police records and found absolutely no evidence of victims ever being billed for rape kits (the letter confirming this is on the document site).

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 18th, 2008

• Thus, we do not even know for sure if a victim ever was charged. The only evidence that supports it is the accusation of a political rival. But to address your specific points:

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 18th, 2008

• 1) If she didn't know about the policy, what does that say about her ability as an executive? Well, you seem to misunderstand how executive agencies work. We have agencies for the sole purpose of running the day to day operations of certain branches of government, and to provide expertise in fields in which elected officials have none. The executive (i.e. mayor, president, etc) merely delegates responsibility to these agencies. Of course, the executive has the power to control the actions of the agency, but you can only expect them to act if they have knowledge of a problem.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 18th, 2008

• 2) Like Truman said, the buck gotta stop somewhere. If she didn't have the power to act, and her executive ability was limited, then she can't tout that extensive experience. First, your bias is showing strong based on your pure lack of logic. Just because an executive does not have the power to act on one issue does not mean they lack executive power.You seem to forget that we live in a land full of checks and balances. You also seem to forget that the budget and laws are not made by the executive. Again, we have no documentary evidence whatsoever that a victim was ever charged in Wasilla. But if we assume they were, we still don’t why? Was there a law in Wasilla that mandated it, or was it simply an agency policy?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 18th, 2008

• 3) And as for proof of her not acting, I repeat that it took a legislative effort for the policy to be changed. First, again, this assumes that Palin had knowledge of the policy, and second, that she had the ability to act. A mayor, like a President, cannot overturn a law once it has been passed. However, the legislature can change a law. Moreover, the article you sited claimed that Wasilla started charging for rape kits in 1999. Palin was out of office in 2000. Thus, assuming that she could act, you are still left with a very small window of time to allow her to act.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 18th, 2008

• Also, your article stated that the practice of charging victims began in 1999, and the legislation was enacted in May of 2000. I do not know if you are familiar with the legislative process, but that would likely mean that the legislation was introduced before Wasilla allegedly began billing victims. How would that be possible?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 18th, 2008

Comments

Comments

• Not really. A rape kit isn't a health care issue. It is 'an investigation of a crime scene'. No one gets charged for the police/forensics/etc., to investigate the scene of any other crime. Why is rape treated differently? The rape kit is to aid in the proof of a crime and to gather any evidence that can be found... just as needs to be done if a home is broken into or someone it murdered. Why should the rape victim or insurance company foot the bill for the police investigation?
  
  On the other note, the story about Palin is nothing but a smear campaign. Palin passed no such law. The STATE of Alaska, just like many other states had that policy. Alaska chose to change that policy (which I applaud.) Funny how no one was up in arms that Illinois had the same policy of charging rape victims for the kits.

  • Report
  

  by kaye13 on January 31st, 2011

• Also, on the other hand, many rape victims choose not to go through the public trial process for several reasons, so the results from processing a rape kit, especially the expensive DNA lab work, would all be done for no good reason.

  • Report
  

  by Heather108 on February 4th, 2011