Rape victims pay for their own exams? (political)

Now consider the sources of the next two links, one is a known dem haven and the other isnt known for its hard hitting journalism....

USA Today

Ariana Huffington.

I have to say that the HuffingtonPost article/blogpost/whatnot is actually fairly good. What I am not sure of is whether there is sufficient nexus between a signature and being a proponent of a policy. It is certainly irresponsible to sign a document you havent read or havent read completely, but it is something that happens a lot, especially in situations where you rely on advisors.

There is no way I am giving a pass on this just.... disbelieving that any woman (or man) could intentionally add the insult of a bill to the injury of rape. I mean, beside the already horrendous belief that rape victims must bear the burden of a child if they become pregnant by their perpetrator....

Thoughts?

I saw that today, too, and wasn't sure how much of a grain of salt to take it with, given it's HuffPo and all...I likes my liberal media but I know to be careful with it.  If true; horrifying.

Okay, well that is just wrong. Palin is like the most anti-woman woman I've ever seen! Clearly she knows no one who's been a victim of rape or incest or her opinions would be totally different (one would hope).

the first i heard about this was jon stewart last night.  i believe him ; he's a reliable source ;)

pg you know what is the worst part about your statement?

its true.

I saw a couple of blurbs about this on Monday. I didn't want to jump on the bandwagon ahead of real proof. I actually sent a request to factcheck and politifact asking them to look into it.

if you check out the huffinton post, there is a link to the actual budget reports.  im not sure we can ever find proof of whether she was supportive or ignorant of the provision.

Holy Misogyny, Batman! I havent heard of women being so anti women's rights since they interviewed those poor brainwashed FLDS teenage Moms a few months ago o_O

I've been hearing about this and began to wonder who normally pays for this. I asked my mother about mine and she says that her insurance paid for it and that it was billed as an emergency room visit. So apparently that's the procedure in places other than Wasilla.

But personally I would like to see the rape kit funded in other ways. Do we charge the families of murder victims for forensics and gathering evidence in those cases?If there was indeed funding for it in Alaska and she cut that that is truly heinous, but then again she hasn't exactly been a friend to rape victims anyway.

huh.  seems to me it should be a criminal justice expense.

(and coffincritter - i'm sorry.)

"In 2000, there were 497 rapes reported in Alaska, FBI statistics show. That's a rate of 79.3 per 100,000 residents, the highest in the nation."

Hmmmm...

All states are required to provide rape kits along with counseling, legal assistance and medical services since Congress' passage of the Violence Against Women Act in December 2005.

Over here they tried to tell rape victims who were drunk at the time of the attack they couldn't get as much compensation as sober victims because basicaly because alcohol consumption could be seen as a contributing factor to the rape.....

Original Post by lifeizsweet:

Over here they tried to tell rape victims who were drunk at the time of the attack they couldn't get as much compensation as sober victims because basicaly because alcohol consumption could be seen as a contributing factor to the rape.....

...

 

What?

 

Please tell me people aren't that stupid. Please.
That's like saying you got stabbed by a burglar because you had knives in your house. Oh okay, my bad. >_>;

Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said 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."

Bull.

She signed off on a police budget blatantly singling out and excluding rape as a crime whose investigation was covered by police funds. 

She reduced rape to a medical expense for surviving victims.

Wasilla wouldnt stop upon request until a state lawmaker forced them to by law only for Palin's hired chief to then complain rape not being worthy alongside other crimes of taxpayer funding.
That apparantly was reserved and acceptable for what they recognized as real crimes.

And the rape victims who went and got themselves impregnated by their rapist Palin feels must be forced to hold onto that fertilized egg, go through 9 months of pregnancy and produce their rapist's baby. 

In comparison, the financial cost probably seemed like a small request of the victim. 

She's a scary 'woman'.  This should def be a covered by investigation costs.  Then, once the perp is found and convicted, they can be charged directly for the expense along with all the rest of the expenses that their criminality caused.

This whole thing bothers me at such a deep level I can't even begin to describe it.

Oh Lord!

Coffincritter already said that where she lives it's the same way.  But do we really have to single out one person when there are obviously alot more around the United States who have passed the same laws?

I say if the person has insurance, let the insurance pay for it.  What's wrong with that? If they don't have insurance than there should be something set in place to help those people.

My hubby is a police officer here and they send/escort people to the hospital to have all of that stuff done.  I'm not positive, but I think it's considered a hospital visit, and therefore billed to insurance.

EDIT:  I could be wrong, but that is what I heard last.

Original Post by lifeizsweet:

Over here they tried to tell rape victims who were drunk at the time of the attack they couldn't get as much compensation as sober victims because basicaly because alcohol consumption could be seen as a contributing factor to the rape.....

What?!?!?!? Urge to kill rising...rising...

#17 -Where I livED, and some years ago. That's not to say they don't have a different policy now.

Original Post by peaches0405:

Oh Lord!

Coffincritter already said that where she lives it's the same way.  But do we really have to single out one person when there are obviously alot more around the United States who have passed the same laws?

I say if the person has insurance, let the insurance pay for it.  What's wrong with that? If they don't have insurance than there should be something set in place to help those people.

My hubby is a police officer here and they send/escort people to the hospital to have all of that stuff done.  I'm not positive, but I think it's considered a hospital visit, and therefore billed to insurance.

EDIT:  I could be wrong, but that is what I heard last.

I am absolutely shocked that you think it's OK that a woman or her insurance company should be billed for the collection of evidence.