About those rape kit charges. . . .

[Anonymous]

Rachael Larimore at Slate has done some extensive research into the Sarah-Palin-charged-for-rape-kits story and says it's a smear. While I don't support Palin as a candidate, I understand the frustration of her supporters when these false rumors continue to circulate.

If you follow this link you can get the story with all her embedded links to source material:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/09/26/debunk-a-bunk.aspx

Debunk-a-Bunk

It looks like the Sarah Palin rape-kit myth is still alive and flourishing. A reader sent along this editorial in the New York Times today by Dorothy Samuels decrying the policy and asking Palin to give voters an explanation.

Unfortunately, all this piece does is help perpetuate the myth. Thankfully, in addition to the blog posts I linked to in my first post about this, Jim Geraghty at the National Review Online has done his own thorough debunking, which I quote from below.

Samuels writes: "[W]hen news of Wasilla's practice of billing rape victims got around, Alaska's State Legislature approved a bill in 2000 to stop it." However, the Alaska state legislature did NOT pass the bill in response to Wasilla's policy of charging rape victims. As Geraghty points out, the bill came about because hospitals were charging victims."

"Lauree Hugonin, director of the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, spoke at several committee meetings. She noted in response to Smith's comment that while he had not found an instance where law enforcement has forwarded a bill, "hospitals have. It has happened in the Mat-Su Valley, on the Kenai Peninsula, and in Southeast, and that is why the bill is being brought forward.'"

Further evidence that the law was not targeted at Wasilla:
Yet in six committee meetings, Wasilla was never mentioned, even when the discussion turned to the specific topic of where victims were being charged. (The Matanuska-Susitna Valley, the surrounding region—the most densely populated region of the state, and roughly the size of West Virginia—is mentioned in passing.)

Samuels also quotes from an article in the local Wasilla paper that police chief Charlie Fallon didn't want to pass the burden along to taxpayers. That is an undeniably boneheaded and offensive statement. What she leaves out is his statement that he was TRYING to bill INSURANCE COMPANIES, not victims. "In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible," is what he said. The story is old and incomplete. It doesn't say what Fallon would do if the insurance company rejected the claim. But the current mayor of Wasilla says there is no record of a victim being charged for a rape kit.

Lastly, Samuels claims that the Palin campaign has not addressed the issue and has released a statement saying only that "Prevention of domestic violence and sexual assault is a priority for Gov. Palin." However, Palin addressed this matter two weeks ago: "Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella told USA Today in an e-mail that the governor ‘does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test.' "

I did make a small error of my own in my first post about this matter. I wrote that a quote from a Democratic legislator in Alaska that Palin likely didn't know about the policy brought me little comfort. I misread his quote. In fact, that legislator, Eric Croft, said he believed that Palin DID know what was going on, and he's helped smear Palin by saying that the legislation came about because of Wasilla.

I think we can all agree that victims should not have to pay for their rape kits. And billing insurance companies is a far from ideal solution. Reimbursing a victim with state money after she's already had to pay out of pocket is even worse. But it's a problem that's hardly been exclusive to Wasilla or Alaska. Fortunately, states have been quick to pass laws against such practices once word gets out.

But the fact remains that this is a nasty and untrue rumor about Sarah Palin that's been circulating for weeks. If you're an Obama supporter who gets frustrated that people still believe he's Muslim or won't put his hand on his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance, you should understand the frustration that Palin supporters feel when this slime is taken at face value.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Rachael Larimore at Slate has done some extensive research into the Sarah-Palin-charged-for-rape-kits story and says it's a smear. While I don't support Palin as a candidate, I understand the frustration of her supporters when these false rumors continue to circulate.

Rachael Larimore appears to be an extremely poor researcher and shame on you for being so gullible. I am not a professional journalist or even a blogger. But, in less than 10 minutes of doing nothing more than reading, I was able to note the following:

1) Larimore links to an article in the Alaskan Frontiersman that says, "the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests." This totally contradicts Larimore's contention that it was actually hospitals that charge victims.

2) Larimore writes that "the current mayor of Wasilla says there is no record of a victim being charged for a rape kit." But, Larimore links to a document that says no victims were charged for rape kits in 2000, 2001, or 2002. The law preventing such charges came into effect in August 2000, so of course there were no charges since that time. The document effectively says no victims were charged in the first 8 months of 2000. It says nothing about what happened prior to that time. Palin was elected mayor in 1996.

3) It is indisputable that during Palin's tenure, Wasilla had a policy of charging rape victims for the cost of the investigative kits. In cases where victims had insurance and the insurance would cover the charges, the charges may have been passed on to the insurance company. It is also indisputable that the Police Chief Palin hired after firing his predecessor opposed the state law prohibiting the practice. It is very strange that Palin is not on the record regarding this issue at all (until after being selected as McCain's running mate), despite that it was subject of a state law that gained significant publicity in her small town. So, Palin was at worse supportive of charging rape victims, or at best indifferent.

Factcheck.org says the charge that Palin made rape kit vicitims pay "has some merit, though Palin's precise role is unclear."

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_sarah_palin_make_rape_victims_pay.html

PolitiFact.com says:

"We can’t find that Palin ever commented on the policy, pro or con. But as mayor, she indirectly endorsed it by approving city budgets that relied on the revenue. So we find the bloggers' charge to be Half True."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/sep/22/palin-rape-kit-controversy/

[Anonymous]

Ewww, touche!

[Anonymous]

Jeff, if you read the Frontiersman story carefully you will find, as Larimore did, that it's unclear whether any victims were actually charged. It's contradictory. (And the story is so poorly written, at least as its posted online, that it's almost impossible to tell where the direct quotes are.) First the story says, ". . . the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests." But then it quotes the police chief as saying, "In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible." Larimore notes that and says it's unclear what happened if insurance companies failed to pay. So the only direct quote about charges in the story says the charges went to insurance companies. There is no quote saying the charges went to victims. The statement that "the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests" is the reporter's assumption; it is not supported by a quote or by an attribution such as, "the police chief said." Any second-year journalism student would know that's not an acceptable way to present a fact.

You write, "It is indisputable that during Palin's tenure, Wasilla had a policy of charging rape victims for the cost of the investigative kits." Can you please provide a reliable journalistic source for that contention? Not a blog source or opinion source, please.

Finally, you acknowledge that Factcheck says there is "some" merit to the claims but that Palin's role is "unclear." PolitiFact says the charge is "half true." You are the one who posted this initially. You have pushed this story repeatedly. Do you feel comfortable knowing that it's a half truth at best?

I want Obama to win as much as you do. Perhaps more, given that you don't believe there's much of a financial crisis and I believe the opposite. I think Obama's election is essential if we're going to avert a worldwide economic disaster, but I'm not going to spread lies or half truths to make it happen. You like to make it sound as though Sarah Palin was out there advocating that rape victims be charged for evidence collection, but the truth is far more murky than that -- and far less damning to Palin than you want it to be. This kind of thing is just ugly.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I want Obama to win as much as you do. Perhaps more, given that you don't believe there's much of a financial crisis and I believe the opposite. I think Obama's election is essential if we're going to avert a worldwide economic disaster, but I'm not going to spread lies or half truths to make it happen. You like to make it sound as though Sarah Palin was out there advocating that rape victims be charged for evidence collection, but the truth is far more murky than that -- and far less damning to Palin than you want it to be. This kind of thing is just ugly.

The thread I started was titled, "Wasilla Charged Rape Victims for their own Rape Kits while Palin was Mayor". This is supported by the Frontiersman article. It is also supported by this article in the Anchorage Daily News:

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/523708.html

The ADN article says that the sponsor of the bill to prohibit passing on charges actually asked the Wasilla police to stop charging victims, with no success.

I have never suggested that Palin was advocating that rape victims be charged for the rape kits. If you are going to put words in my mouth, you are going to have to try a lot harder than that. What I have said is that Wasilla charged rape victims while Palin was Mayor. A law to prohibit such charges was prompted at least in part by Wasilla's practice (so says the sponsor of the bill). The police chief of Wasilla who was appointed by Palin publicly opposed the law.

So, you have a very public dispute over a law and there is no record of Palin taking a position either way. Her appointee opposed the law. As I said earlier, either Palin was indifferent or Palin was opposed to the law. There is nothing murky about that.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
The thread I started was titled, "Wasilla Charged Rape Victims for their own Rape Kits while Palin was Mayor". This is supported by the Frontiersman article.

As I said, the Frontiersman story doesn't pass muster as a piece of journalism. It's too unclear. The only definitive piece of information is that insurance companies were charged.

jsteele wrote:It is also supported by this article in the Anchorage Daily News:

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/523708.html

The ADN article says that the sponsor of the bill to prohibit passing on charges actually asked the Wasilla police to stop charging victims, with no success.

The quote from the story is, "Former Democratic Rep. Eric Croft, who sponsored that bill, said he was disappointed that simply asking the Wasilla police department to stop didn't work. Croft said he doubts Palin was unaware of the practice."

So you have a former Democratic legislator saying he "doubts" Palin was unaware. He doesn't know; he "doubts." He also manipulates the facts to make it sound as though Wasilla was the reason he brought forward the bill. But here's the quote refuting that:

"Lauree Hugonin, director of the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, spoke at several committee meetings. She noted in response to Smith's comment that while he had not found an instance where law enforcement has forwarded a bill, "hospitals have. It has happened in the Mat-Su Valley, on the Kenai Peninsula, and in Southeast, and that is why the bill is being brought forward."

And, "Yet in six committee meetings, Wasilla was never mentioned, even when the discussion turned to the specific topic of where victims were being charged. (The Matanuska-Susitna Valley, the surrounding region—the most densely populated region of the state, and roughly the size of West Virginia—is mentioned in passing.)"

jsteele wrote:I have never suggested that Palin was advocating that rape victims be charged for the rape kits. If you are going to put words in my mouth, you are going to have to try a lot harder than that. What I have said is that Wasilla charged rape victims while Palin was Mayor. A law to prohibit such charges was prompted at least in part by Wasilla's practice (so says the sponsor of the bill).

I've addressed this above. It appears that this practice was widespread in Alaska. Is it possible that the sponsor of the bill had some political incentive to omit this fact? One might think so, given that this story is appearing now that Palin is the Republican VP nominee.

jsteele wrote:So, you have a very public dispute over a law and there is no record of Palin taking a position either way. Her appointee opposed the law. As I said earlier, either Palin was indifferent or Palin was opposed to the law. There is nothing murky about that.

There is a third possibility, which is that Palin actually was unaware. That carries its own liability, of course. If you want to split hairs on this kind of thing, you can. We can also split hairs on whether Obama knew that the final "born alive" bill he opposed would not undermine RvW. He says that's why he opposed it; he has apparently forgotten that he voted against a bill that included the RvW protections he said were necessary. (Factcheck acknowledges that.)

As far as Palin's appointee opposing the law, he supported charging insurance companies. Not victims. Yes, he opposed the law, and I disagree with that (obviously). But in neither story does Fannon, the police chief, support charging rape victims for kits. The ADN story paraphrases Tony Knowles, the former Democratic governor of Alaska as saying that Wasilla was unique in charging victims, but the evidence suggests that this is untrue. Knowles of course lost to Palin in the 2006 election for governor, and is obviously shading the truth.

It seems to me that the rape kit thing is at best a willful dissemination of a half truth.

[Anonymous]

This is such a non-issue. This distortion of record simply pushes the pro-Palin or the Palin-leaning camps more firmly into her camp and less willing to listen to legitimate issues about readiness for office.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
It seems to me that the rape kit thing is at best a willful dissemination of a half truth.

Yes, the story is a half truth if you misreport what I have said, ignore media reports that don't support your viewpoint, ignore the testimony of the sponsor of the bill and the governor who signed it into law because they are Democrats, and engage in extensive self delusion.

The Huffington Post reported that prior to Palin's term in office the Wasilla police paid for the exams. After, Palin came into office, the line item covering the exams was decreased as the police stop paying for them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html

Of course, the Huffington Post is not Fox News or Slate, so you will probably not accept it as a source despite its linking to all the budgets in question, including budget notes.

It is well known that Palin opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest. As I understand it, emergency contraception is often administered as part of a rape examination. I don't know whether Palin considers emergency contraception to be a form of abortion, but if so, it may explain why she did not work to change Wasilla's policy on this issue.

Ironically, Joe Biden's Violence Against Women Act, also included prohibitions against charging victims for rape kits. Guess who voted against that bill? John McCain.

[Anonymous]

However you want to characterize it, the story was sure out there yesterday as a friend told me she had read on DCUM that Wasilla was the only town in Alaska to do this and Palin had instituted it. Perhaps in posting your item you should have noted that many other jurisdictions in Alaska did the same thing. That's the "half truth" part -- omitting the fact that this was common practice across Alaska, not just in Wasilla.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:However you want to characterize it, the story was sure out there yesterday as a friend told me she had read on DCUM that Wasilla was the only town in Alaska to do this and Palin had instituted it. Perhaps in posting your item you should have noted that many other jurisdictions in Alaska did the same thing. That's the "half truth" part -- omitting the fact that this was common practice across Alaska, not just in Wasilla.

You are making two assumptions:

1) that when I made the original post I was aware of how widespread, or not widespread, the practice was, and;

2) that charging victims of rape for their rape kits was "common practice across Alaska".

In fact, you are wrong on both assumptions.

The original article to which I linked says, "Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams..."

I would have no basis on which to challenge this assertion by Wasilla's newspaper that the practice not the norm.

As for your second assumption, here are the minutes to one hearing on the bill to prohibit such charges:

http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_single_minute.asp?ch=H&beg_line=0204&end_line=0332&session=21&comm=FIN&date=20000410&time=1415

Some excerpts:

"Representative Foster questioned how widespread the problem is. Representative Croft replied that it is not widespread but that it does exist."

Lauree Hugonin (a sexual assault activist cited in the Slate article): "She noted that there has been some difficulty in Mat-Su, Anchorage, Kenai and Sitka and possibly in Bethel. She was not aware of other parts of the State where there was a problem. Ms. Hugonin advised that this problem is not on going and pervasive, but that it does occur more than sporadically."

Clearly, according to these two experts, the problem was not "common practice across Alaska". Rather, it was "not widespread" and "not on going and pervasive".

Note that Hugonin mentions Mat-Su which is the region containing Wasilla.

[Anonymous]

It's not a problem that was limited to Wasilla. It may not have been "common practice across Alaska," as I said, but it was clearly not something that was limited to Wasilla. Nor was it a practice that Sarah Palin initiated. (No, I am not saying you posted that.) I did not assume that you knew how widespread (or not) the practice was when you first posted the story. You must have made an assumption yourself, however, that it was not a widespread practice because you obviously thought it reflected poorly on Palin.

In this case, what happened with my friend is exactly what 10:39 mentioned. But it's not your fault, and in general the ugliness my friend was railing about is not something that came from you. I'm just frustrated. I thought she was within reach of convincing. We need votes in Virginia.

[jsteele]

Your friend will love this advertisement:

[Anonymous]

I know. I just saw it on Ben Smith's blog:

Planned Parenthood Action Fund joins the crowd with an ad suggesting that Palin forced rape victims to pay for rape kits as mayor, and adding that McCain voted against legislation that would have forbidden local authorities from doing that.

The substance of the ad is disputed. Palin's spokeswoman said she never supported that policy; and nobody has turned up a specific case in which a victim was billed personally. But her police chief, according to a contemporaneous report, lobbied to keep billing victims. FactCheck has a basically unsatisfying attempt to answer it and a piece of nuance worth keeping in mind is whether the city billed uninsured victims personally, or just billed their insurance companies when available.

I don't personally think it's helpful as a pro-Obama ad. Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Is there also question about the claim concerning McCain's vote?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Is there also question about the claim concerning McCain's vote?

No. No question at all. The measure was part of the larger Violence Against Women Act that was sponsored by Joe Biden.