Rare Editions Toddler Slippers Dress 2...

Your article, if it had made any attempt to be fair would have included this, but to you hacks, fair reporting is the last thing on your minds.

I read through blogs and news articles since this surfaced and as a recent victim of violent rape here is what I had to say:

http://rape-and-sexual-assault.blogspot.com/2008/09/rape-victims-view-of-palin-and-rape-kit.html

Victoria Placeo

And you know this how? Most inter departmental policies like this generally are established inside the police department and aren't really something the mayor does.

This was actually my first thought, but if you check out the articles I linked, you'll see that (a) Palin was one of the group of people responsible for getting a Department in Wasilla, and (b) Palin was involved in sending policy memos directly to the Chief of Police.

I agree that this isn't open and shut, which is why I think that this is merely a prima facie case, not a conclusion. But she appears to have been more involved in police operations than a typical small-town Mayor, which is why I couldn't just dismiss it out of hand (which is actually what I was prepared to do when I wrote the post--most of the bloggers who wrote about this story were ridiculously over the top and I wanted to do a piece debunking this thing, but I found that I couldn't given Palin's history). I am very open to the case that she wasn't involved in setting this policy, but I haven't found it.

And you know this how? Most inter departmental policies like this generally are established inside the police department and aren't really something the mayor does.

Our town mayor has very little to do with departmental policy-the mayor works with the city council to establish budgets and budget needs, but they don't set the policy in my town. If there is a policy issue problem they may call in the chief to explain himself, but departmental policy is set by the chief.

so what evidence to you have that Palin was this involved, or are you speculating?

Who the hell cares? I'm for the legalization of drugs. I have no problem with people using drugs, as long as they don't hurt anyone while doing so. If Obama had a DUI, trust me, I'd be all over it.

So the fact that everyone that uses drugs is hurting themselves and every one around them means you are really against drugs?

too bad you don't come from the streets and have not seen the effects the have on everyone and their families, maybe you would not say such silly things, drugs are bad dude, and so are the peaces of sh-t that promote them and sell them.

That might be, but a town of 9000 almost ten years ago may or may not have had the resources to do that. Even so, I don't think that's good policy.

So, I guess we can agree there is a prima facie case that Palin was insensitive to the needs of the health insurance industry. Although I'm not sure the gag order from her first term in office really is good evidence that she knew about this policy.

Given that the cited article twice mentions that the Wasilla PD already partially funds the kits, I'm still not buying the case that she was insensitive to victims (the complaint was the *additional* funding required, not a statement that they didn't fund to begin with). We definitely need more information to prove this case.

Personally, I think this makes a strong, prima facie case that Palin was aware of the Department's policy and did not do anything to change it. If that's true, I find that to be pretty deplorable.

If. If your personal belief of this version of a chain of events is true. Got it. Again, the burden remains on you -- not me to resolve your hypothetical. Sometimes, I think I should have been a lawyer.

For the record, I have no counters and do not expect to acquire any since I will not be headed up to Wasilla to do opposition research or any other kind of research, nor do I carry a torch for John McCain. Your torch carrying for Senator Obama is becoming a bit embarrassing though.

Specifically, it is quite possible that they worked with a local hospital and settled the coinsurance and deductibles directly with the department.

That might be, but a town of 9000 almost ten years ago may or may not have had the resources to do that. Even so, I don't think that's good policy.

I don't expect you to dig into it, but if you've got any counters that come up, I would honestly be interested.

However, let's look at the facts. The Chief of Police admitted that they charge victime of rape for the cost of their kits. Wasilla is a small town. The Chief was a Palin appointee. Palin had a standing order that no City officials would talk to the press without clearing it with her office, first.

It may have been an internal department policy, but Palin helped create the Police Department in 1992 when she was on the City Council of Wasilla. As Mayor, she involved herself with the inner workings of the Police Department.

Personally, I think this makes a strong, prima facie case that Palin was aware of the Department's policy and did not do anything to change it. If that's true, I find that to be pretty deplorable. However, given the lack of direct quotes from Palin in the article, it remains a prima facie case. A strong case, to be sure, but I truly am open to counter-evidence. Frankly, I'd like it. There's a chance that Palin might be President one day. Given that, I would hope that she's the kind of person who would not allow a policy like this. I think it's beyond the pale.

Your's is an old debating trick or campaign tactic to make your opponent spend all his or her time responding to your accusations, thereby preventing him or her from getting their message out. Nice try, but as Joan Crawford once said, "this ain't my first time at the rodeo." And somehow, I doubt it is Governor Palin's either.

I trust you can infer the requisite allusions.

"In those cases, the victim would still be left bearing the cost of the forensic investigation of crime committed against her."

Specifically, it is quite possible that they worked with a local hospital and settled the coinsurance and deductibles directly with the department. A different state, but here's a recent description of NC doing this exact thing: link.

Of course, I fail to see why the insurance company should have to pay, either, but in the bigger scheme of "government passing the buck to private insurance", this is a small potato.