Sarah Palin and the Rape Kit Question

Reader Comments
Back to blog

lemyaskin rulezz

lemyaskin of NH 9:49PM September 22, 2009

In the end, it doesn't really matter if Sarah Palin is a woman or a man. She is running, alongside John McCain, to lead the Executive branch of the U.S. government. Anyone who voluntarily applies for this all-important job must first go through the interview process with the American people, and I, for one, as a woman, am worried by what I see in Sarah Palin. It is our right (and our JOB) as citizens, who will undoubtedly be impacted by their future decisions, to question, criticize, and ultimately decide if their opinions, experience, and character qualify them to lead our country. We do this with our own vote.
My own ultimate feelings about the McCain/Palin ticket has little to do with the Rape Kit controversy alone, but in combination with her ultra-conservative views and the inevitable changes to come on the U.S. Supreme Court, I worry about my future rights as a woman. This is why I feel that Sarah Palin is a dangerous woman. She is not an "Every Woman". She does not represent me, or most other women around me. To me she is the "anti-Woman". It is not just about the now, or the decisions/opinions expressed in the past. It is also about future conditions that may arise to change the lives and rights of America's women. Look ahead!

Chris of MA 11:53AM October 09, 2008

I have read all of that and then some: He may ahve said he would "like" to see the offender pick up the tab but the victim still has to pay first. And then get reimbursed. By a rapist who might, all the Gods willing, end up in jail. So exactly how are the victims going to be reimbursed? Apparently YOU didn't read the entire article.

T. Wilson of TX 11:49AM October 08, 2008

Does a Mayor even have the power to change that? This is extremely biased.

of 10:24PM October 07, 2008

Okay, let me get this straight: Palin should have/must have known every single detail about life in Wasilla when she was mayor; but Barack H. Obama sat in Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years, was married by Rev. Wright, had his children baptized by Wright, and NEVER, EVER heard Wright utter a single inflammatory comment about white people or this country. Not only that, but Barack's friendship with his good buddy William Ayers, the domestic terrorist, is not a liability because Ayers committed his criminal acts when Barry was just a child so it doesn't count. It is a sad time for this nation when a presidential candidate will not be questioned about his past, his views, his record, and his associations because the media intend to elect him. His opponent cannot question him because of the fear of the race card being played by Obama. We had all better hope that the first thing to go in an Obama administration will not be the First Amendment; alas, I fear it will be so. The rest of the Constitution will be shredded bit by bit by Obama.

Afraid, Very Afraid of MI 12:06AM October 03, 2008

Sorry folks- not a single person in Wasilla was ever charged by the city for a rape kit. The story is false. It was never a policy in Wasilla, nor did it ever occur. Nobody in the media can produce a single billing record or victim to back this story because it is an urban (well- small town urban) legend. The controversy in the Alaska legislature in 2000 came about because a private hospital in Juneau and Fairbanks mistakenly billed victims instead of the cities for rape kits, thus the legislature banned the practice. The Wasilla chief of Police wanted to charge perpetrators for the kits- not rape victims. This story is an example of Sarah Palin hate gone wild.

Marty of MN 3:56PM October 01, 2008

I read it and think that it is appalling that Palin's administration had to be forced to do this. If she did not know about the practice, she should say. But, if she did not know that such a practice was going on being the mayor of a town so small, then shame on her. Fannon said that the criminal should pay. Well, fine, but that does that mean that if the criminal doesn't pay the victim should?

dwg of CA 1:29PM September 27, 2008

The bottom line is that Sarah Palin did nothing to change this policy of charging VICTIMS for their rape kits. That means she didn't see anything wrong with it. That makes her responsible. She was in a position of power. It is hard enough for a woman to bring herself to report a rape, and then to require her to pay for speaking up is reprehensible. Besides this (and lying about many things that have been exposed as lies), there are MANY things wrong with Sarah Palin, and anyone who believes that she should be in power has a lot of research and self-examination to do. Period.

very disillusioned of CT 9:11PM September 24, 2008

Let's not not talk in fantasy, but reality. While Fannon's intentions (fantasies) are admirable the reality is that criminals are not currently bearing the financial burden of the added costs nor are they paying restitution to the victims.
The article you cite also quotes then Gov. Knowles, "We would never bill the victim of a burglary for fingerprinting and photographing the crime scene, or for the cost of gathering other evidence, Knowles said. Nor should we bill rape victims just because the crime scene happens to be their bodies."
Journalistic integrity lies in dealing with the facts, and the fact is criminals were not footing the bill, but the victims/victims' insurance companies were. Seems to me Michelle got it right.

rtisticfx of NY 1:23PM September 23, 2008