Things Not Acceptable for which to Charge

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/index.html
Reading the article in the paper today, about Palin’s town, while she was mayor, charging women for rape-kits in opposition to state legislation fighting the practice is about as disagreeable as possible, to say the least. I have to admit, from a victim’s perspective, the idea of being charged for a component of the investigation is among the most absurd and horrific things I’ve ever heard.

I understand that Palin is on record not being aware that women or their insurance were being charged for their rape kits. However, provided this was a topic of the legislature and in the news in Alaska, during her term as mayor, methinks that she probably pondered the issue, and investigated it.


I can also imagine that, like ambulance fees being charged to a person or their insurance, it was internally justified as something, “the insurance will be probably paying for this, in most cases.” I am going to make another assumption, based on the way investigations and interactions with Police following the report of criminal activity; I don’t imagine women are being told upfront they’re going to be charged. No, instead, I think it’s as the article shows it, one received a bill after the fact with that $1000 charge. They receive the bill or the Explanation of Benefits from their insurance.

From personal experience, just receiving an explanation of benefits from one’s insurance company, for the charges for an ambulance that took them to the hospital in a medical emergency predicated on criminal activity, leaves one shocked that something so basic and not to the victim’s fault could be assigned to the victim. Fortunately, in the State of Illinois, there is victim’s compensation, which would have paid for that charge in arrears, if insurance didn’t pick it up. Nevertheless, sending a victim through that rigmarole is unimaginable, particularly in the case of something as brutal as rape.

What this tells me about Governor Palin is:

1. If she was not aware of this, she was not detail-oriented, nor was she a victim’s advocate;
2. If she was, but thought it was “okay,” she has a deficient morale compass
3. As one who is anti-abortion, even in cases of rape or incest, she has no empathy or perspective on women’s health issues or perspective on victim’s rights.

In summation, to think that anyone would think it was okay to charge victim for the investigation of a crime, in any capacity, needs to be removed from their position. It’s simply not acceptable, nor is it something that anyone should support. I hope she has to answer this in the public domain, not through a public relations representative. That’s among the most horrific policy stances I’ve ever seen.