Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Palin’s police chief: Charge rape victims for forensic tests

By

Bryson continues:

A May 23, 2000, article in Wasilla’s newspaper, The Frontiersman, noted that Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies regularly pay for such exams, which cost between $300 and $1,200 apiece.

“[But] the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests,” the newspaper  reported.

It also quoted Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon objecting to the law. Fannon was appointed to his position by Palin after her dismissal of the previous police chief. He said it would cost Wasilla $5,000 to $14,000 a year if the city had to foot the bill for rape exams.

This should be appalling to any decent-thinking person, needless to say. But working-class women who supported Hillary Clinton – one of the prime demographics the Palin pick is aimed at attracting – really ought to take a close look at their new hero’s record.

And please note that Knowles’ accusation, though it is a partisan attack, is backed up by facts reported by Palin’s hometown newspaper at the time this outrage was unfolding. There is no excusing or explaining away such reprehensible conduct.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. That in itself is unbelievable.

    <

    p>I would like her to stand up to an audience an explain why $5000 to $14000 a year is an excessive burden for a city to spend on rape kits.

    <

    p>So what happens if the person who was raped cannot afford the rape kit?  Do they have the person speak to a financial counselor and put them on a payment plan?

    <

    p>Frontiersmen original article.

    <

    p>

    Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.

    In the past we’ve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just don’t want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said.

    <

    p>So forensic tests for other crime is fine, but in the case of rape then the victim needs to foot the bill.  That is just obscene.

    • Did it not happen?

      <

      p>You got charged for a ride in an ambulance and now the story is debunked?

      <

      p>Good grief.

        • Lacking, apparently.
          My daughter, not me, was billed, not held responsible.

          <

          p>Would you like to pay her bill? Or would you like the insurance company to pay it?
          Those are your choices Bob, pick one.

          • income tax to pay, through Department of Justice grants to all 50 states, for rape kits. The catch is, you’ll have to pledge the same percentage from your taxes. Can you spare it, geo999? I think it’s an expense “the state” should well be expected to cover. By the way, is not pursuing a debt the same as expunging the debt?

            • I would first rather have an insurance company pick up the tab for medical emergencies, wherever possible.

              <

              p>No Insurance? The department cancels the debt.  

  3. There’s only 7,000 people in Wasilla- what the hell is the crime rate in this city, if they’re spending $2000 per resident on rape tests?  Even at $1,200/test, that’s 5x the national average for reported rape statistics.

  4. The point is that these things are medical devices, and a medical procedure, conduced by medical people, not law enforcement.  As such, they should be paid for by medical insurance.

    <

    p>That means that they must be billed to the patient, otherwise known as the victim.  Health insurance pays, as it would for medical expenses of any other trauma.

    <

    p>If the health insurance doesn’t pay, or if there is no health insurance, it is dropped.

    <

    p>Until the screeching bloggers find a rape victim who got dunned and actually had to pay something, I am going to assume that this is another pointless nothing that sucks air from the Obama campaign, and keeps Candidate McCain a’smiling.

  5. First, we know that Knowles, a ex-gov and Democrat has a bias.  You say as much. He says:

    <

    p>

    “There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla,” Knowles is quoted as saying.

    <

    p>The very next paragraph of the linked article says:

    <

    p>

    A May 23, 2000, article in Wasilla’s newspaper, The Frontiersman, noted that Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies regularly pay for such exams, which cost between $300 and $1,200 apiece.

    “(But) the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests,” the newspaper reported.

    <

    p>Next, you quote the 5/23/2000 article. You quote IN PART, that is.  

    <

    p>Beyond what you’ve quoted the article says:

    <

    p>

    In the past we’ve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said.

    …

    Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs, Fannon said.

    The forensic exam is just one part of the equation. Id like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things, Fannon said.

    Fannon said he intends to include the cost of exams required to collect evidence in a restitution request as a part of a criminals sentencing.

    <

    p>Isn’t he advancing the policy: 1) perpetrator pays 2) insurance company pays 3) taxpayer pays. Frankly, that strikes me as a good policy.

    <

    p>Is he advancing the policy: 1) perpetrator pays 2) insurance company pays 3) victim pays 4) taxpayer pays.

    <

    p>I think if you examine it objectively you don’t know. But given the one you picked, well, that’s just plain confirmation bias, professor.

    <

    p>You conclude that the victim herself is being billed, based on one sentence from a biased politician, while omitting the entire statement from the Wasilla Police officer, a statement which to me seems very relevant to the entire story.

    <

    p>The real question is, have any victims received a bill.  I don’t know the answer and I suspect, neither do you, but yet you spin it best you can.
     

    • Talk about spin! Good grief. Where to begin? You do not dispute that the legislature had to pass a law to get the one town in Alaska that was doing this to stop. Apparently everyone else believed that forcing a rape victim to go after her insurance company was one burden too many.

      <

      p>As for making the criminal pay for it … why, yes, it would be a good idea, in cases where there was a conviction, to force the rapist to compensate the town. But what if the suspect was acquitted? Oh, yes, I forgot. We have insurance companies, don’t we?

      • As for making the criminal pay for it … why, yes, it would be a good idea, in cases where there was a conviction, to force the rapist to compensate the town. But what if the suspect was acquitted? Oh, yes, I forgot.

        <

        p>Yes, we do have insurance companies, to spread the risk and cost.  Right?

        <

        p>

        You do not dispute that the legislature had to pass a law to get the one town in Alaska that was doing this to stop.

        <

        p>I don’t dispute that a biased politician claimed that was the fact.  He’s right of course, because he shares your political bias.  You’ll be surprised to find, I’m sure, that truth varies.

        <

        p>

  6. For god’s sake, this is NOT about health insurance or a traffic accident on Route 6. Here is the story from Palin’s hometown newspaper in 2000 — read it and then tell me that this is a canard!

    <

    p>Sexual assault is A FELONY. Rape is a classic blame-the-victim crime. I have never heard of ANY police department charging ANY victim for the cost of investigating the crime — until now. Have you heard of a murder victim’s estate or family being charged for the cost of the investigation? Or the victim of a burglary? The rape kit is THE most critical tool to establish the evidence of the crime.

    <

    p>Would you deprive a young child who is the victim of incest the right to have her abuser brought to justice because she or her parent was unable to come up with the funds necessary to cover the cost necessary to gather the semen and public hair necessary to obtain a conviction? What about the elderly woman struggling on Social Security who is sexually assaulted by a caregiver in her own home?

    <

    p>The Violence Against Women Act — which Joe Biden authored — was intended to get the focus of police and proscecutors off of looking at what the crime victim may or may not have done and on achieving justice. To not just refuse to fund the critical tool required to prove that the crime occurred, but for the police to demand that the victim pay for it is sickening.  

    • http://www.frontiersman.com/ar…

      <

      p>Compare this attitude — one of a PROFESSIONAL police chief

      <

      p>

      Palmer police chief Laren Zager said that to his knowledge, no sexual assault victim has ever been billed by the city of Palmer for an exam to collect evidence of a crime. Zager, who has been police chief since January, said he would never expect a victim to be burdened with the cost of a police investigation.

      Im prepared to pay every dime in an investigation. As long as I am chief, I would never bill a victim, Zager said.

    • forensics are fine for burglaries and other crimes, but for rape, sorry, victims needs to take care of that themselves.  Just trying to cut costs folks.

      • Rape victims are as young as two months old and as old as persons in their 80s living in nursing homes. This is a traumatic crime under any circumstances. You cannot seriously say that you want to protect public safety and then force the victim to pay for the most important tool needed to catch the perpetrator of a felony. “Perverse” doesn’t even begin to describe the logic.

        <

        p>And just remember — who hired this particular police chief per the Alaska newspapers? Yup… one Sarah Palin. And which candidate running for the highest office in our country voted AGAINST mandating funding for forensic testing of rape victims, among other issues? Yup….http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

        <

        p>

        Second, Alaska had to ban this practice in order to qualify for funding under the Violence Against Women Act, which was, of course, sponsored by Joe Biden:

        “SEC. 3262. RAPE EXAM PAYMENTS.

        (a) No State or other grantee is entitled to funds under title XXXII of the Violence Against Women Act of 1993 unless the State or other grantee incurs the full cost of forensic medical exams for victims of sexual assault. A State or other grantee does not incur the full medical cost of forensic medical exams if it chooses to reimburse the victim after the fact unless the reimbursement program waives any minimum loss or deductible requirement, provides victim reimbursement within a reasonable time (90 days), permits applications for reimbursement within one year from the date of the exam, and provides information to all subjects of forensic medical exams about how to obtain reimbursement.

        (b) Within 90 days after the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Victims of Crime shall propose regulations to implement this section, detailing qualified programs. Such regulations shall specify the type and form of information to be provided victims, including provisions for multilingual information, where appropriate.”

        One Vice Presidential nominee turned her back on past and future rape victims. Another was looking out for them.

        Oh, and guess who voted against the Violence Against Women Act? John McCain. I used to work in battered women’s shelters. I knew women whose husbands stabbed them all over with dinner forks, women whose husbands used to asphyxiate them for fun, women whose husbands ran over them four times, backwards and forwards, with a truck, and kids who managed to find the presence of mind to run to the nearest house and call the police while their father was trying to bash their mothers’ heads in on the sidewalk — unfortunately, all real examples. So even without the part about requiring funding for rape exams, that vote makes me very, very, very angry.

        • Alaska passes House Bill 270 back in 2000.
          I assume you agree with said bill.

          <

          p>Then why, exactly, are your undies is such a twist?

      • Let’s suspend believe for a sec and pretend that dkennedy owns some objectivity with the respect to his anti-Palin fomentation.

        <

        p>1: A violent crime, rape,… occurs, let’s say, in Massachusetts.

        <

        p>2: Person goes to hospital for treatment.

        <

        p>3: In Massachusetts, the MSAECK (i.e. rape kit) is provided free of charge by the EOPS.  The hospital may NOT assess a fee for its use. Doctors and nurses aren’t free.

        <

        p>4: The hospital MAY and DOES bill for the ER, clinic or doctor visit. To the extent that the person’s MassHealth, Medicare, VA or private insurance does not cover the cost, then the person may apply for Victim Compensation.

        <

        p>That’s the Massachusetts current system.

        <

        p>How did Alaska work?

        <

        p>My point is that based on the 2 articles, I do not know, and dkennedy can not know, but is relying on a statement from a partisan politician that

        <

        p>

        “There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla,” Knowles is quoted as saying.

        <

        p>Well, you know that I can state with certainty that “Massachusetts is charging rape victims for this”, in as much as they’re charging the victim’s insurance company for the exam.

          • But, the rape kit, the MSAECK, is completed by medical professionals, and the victim’s insurance, in Massachusetts is billed for the hospital costs and medical personnel who are essential to the completion of the MSAECK.  Perhaps it is ‘forensic’ but it is nonetheless, services of medical personnel, and is reimbursed by 3rd party, or private insurance.

            <

            p>That’s the way 258C works.

            <

            p>But, the victim’s insurance is not billed for the kit itself.

            • … by medical professionals such as autopsies, crime scene dna tests, etc.  Clearly, being completed by medical professionals is not a sufficient criterion for saying that it should or shouldn’t be privately charged.

              <

              p>It would seem more common sense to me for the criterion (or at least one of many critera) to be if it falls under the category of ‘forensics’ or ‘health care’.  We pay insurance for health care,.. not forensics.

              • … by medical professionals such as autopsies, crime scene dna tests, etc.  Clearly, being completed by medical professionals is not a sufficient criterion for saying that it should or shouldn’t be privately charged.
                It would seem more common sense to me for the criterion (or at least one of many critera) to be if it falls under the category of ‘forensics’ or ‘health care’.  We pay insurance for health care,.. not forensics.

                <

                p>Fair enough.  I can’t disagree with that.

                <

                p>But, you’ve not described the Massachusetts system. Is our system outrageous?  Unfair to the victim?  “Charge victim for forensic tests”, my god crucify Ms. Palin, she’s unfit for VP or governor because of her horrendous.

                <

                p>Feel free to confirm the Mass compliance protocol with the Executive Office of Health and Human Services Department of Public Health.  I did.

                <

                p>Now read the statement of the Wasilla Police Chief:

                <

                p>

                In the past we’ve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said.
                …
                Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs, Fannon said.

                <

                p>Aren’t the policies that i) Massachusetts has and ii) the one the Police Chief articulates, PRECISELY THE SAME POLICY?  

                <

                p>And, if that’s true, then this manufactured outrage, just … manufactured? Or, if it’s so bad, why are we doing it?

                <

                p>

                • … about the MA policy.  I only jumped in on the conversation when the distinction between health care and forensics occured to me.  Frankly, I’m not sure the test for ‘being outraged’ is ‘how does it compare to the MA policy?’.  I don’t even discredit the attempt to charge insurance if they are dumb enough to pay it, given what common sense seems to be about who should be charged for what.  I do think it says something that the state of AK came to an understanding that made more sense as we’ve described above, but that Wasilla went out of its way to do the wrong thing, as described above.  

                • I’m saying that Massachusetts, and many other states bill the victim’s insurance for the time that professional medical personnel commit to completing the rape kit.

                  <

                  p>Wasilla was billing the victim’s insurance for the time that professional medical personnel commit to completing the rape kit PLUS the cost of that kit, because unlike Massachusetts, the kit was not provided free of charge by the State to the City.

                  <

                  p>dkennedy was outraged at the latter practice and does not opine on the former. Perhaps, it’s appropriate to rail at the current Massachusetts Governor and our State’s hospitals for this deplorable practice. I don’t think so, but YMMV.

                  <

                  p>I find the practice acceptable, because in either case, the victim DOES NOT pay and the cost is spread, whether it’s through restitution, taxes or insurance.

                  <

                  p>Maybe, this thread is simply an unobjective, politically motivated smear by dkennedy to target Wasilla, and by reference, Governor Palin?  If so, then carry on. Nothing wrong with a good smear, but fess up when called.

                • Gary — you’ve slung a lot of stuff, but have yet to offer an iota of proof for any of your statements.

                  <

                  p>Kindly provide a quote to the law/regulation/policy and a link to the cite.  

Archives