< 9/11: What if? | Main | The bridge: Will you change your habits? >

Palin and the rape kits

Posted at 8:33 AM on September 11, 2008 by Bob Collins (23 Comments)
Filed under: Politics

The Anchorage Daily News (raise your hand if you had the Anchorage Daily News in your RSS reader before Sarah Palin joined the ticket!) reports today on the Democratic version of their "truth squad," which in this case is called the "Alaska Mythbusters."

Most of the stuff in a teleconference has been well worked over except, the paper says, this one: that rape victims in the town in which Palin was mayor, had to pay for their forensic tests:

Eight years ago, complaints about charging rape victims for medical exams in Wasilla prompted the Alaska Legislature to pass a bill -- signed into law by Knowles -- that banned the practice statewide.

"There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla," Knowles said

It's not just Alaska. Last winter, the Raleigh News & Observer in North Carolina uncovered a similar policy on a statewide basis.

The vast majority of the 3,000 or so emergency room patients examined for sexual assaults each year shoulder some of the cost of a rape kit test, according to state records and victim advocates. For some, it's as little as a $50 insurance co-payment. For those without insurance, it's hundreds of dollars left when a state program designed to help reaches its limit.

Apparently, the practice is more common than most people think.
said Ilse Knecht, deputy director of public policy at the National Center for Victims of Crime in an interview with U.S. News & World Report. "We've heard so many stories of victims paying for their exams, or not being able to and then creditors coming after them."

"The bottom line is these services cost money," Rebecca Andrews, a hospital's vice president of finance told the paper. "We do sometimes forgive. It's case by case. But where do you stop? We treat gunshot wounds, stabbings, abused children. No one asked for that to happen."

According to Knecht, under the Violence Against Women Act, local governments have to pay the full costs of the rape kits. But some victims are still being charged anyway.

According to Knecht, reports from the field indicated recently that caseworkers in Georgia, Arkansas, and -- wait for it -- Illinois are running into the same policy as the one in Wasilla. According to a 2004 summary by the group, in Illinois, Obama's state, there is "no charge to a victim who is ineligible for services under Illinois Public Aid Code and who has no insurance."

Obama filed legislation to change state law so that the victims don't pay. It was signed by the governor of Illinois in 2001.

Minnesota takes a direct route on the issue: Victims don't pay and don't have to mess with insurance companies. Period. In Minnesota, the county in which the alleged rape occurred is responsible for paying for the rape kits. The victim is not billed.

Comments (23)

Please clarify. What did Obama work to change? To have the victims chareged for the kits? or to make the local government pay for them? The language in your post makes that unclear to me.

Posted by Dave | September 11, 2008 9:31 AM

Sorry. Will clarify on edit. He filed the technical bill so that rape victims aren't paying.

Posted by Bob Collins | September 11, 2008 9:38 AM

Yeah, no kidding.

"...no charge to a victim who is ineligible for services under Illinois Public Aid Code and who has no insurance."

So if you are ineligible for state health coverage and you don't have private insurance, there's still no charge? And Obama tried to change that? Why would he do that? The new law says this:

"Provides that if the Comptroller offsets a claim, the individual or entity receiving the funds must credit the applicant's or victim's account and may not pursue payment from the applicant or victim for the amount."

Sounds like there must have been a typo in the blog post. Either way, I think it's stupid that you should have to pay. This is evidence gathering and should be paid by the police department. They don't charge robbery victims to dust for fingerprints, so why should they charge rape victims to gather DNA evidence?

Posted by Luca | September 11, 2008 9:38 AM

Thanks for this post. I also appreciate the fact that NPR revisited Palin's lies about earmarks yesterday for the second consecutive day, and that they amped up their coverage.

Blogger Kevin Drum has started a list of reporters and pundits who have called out the McCain campaign for their willingness to repeat lies long after they've been debunked.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if all this trash talking was ended by aggressive reporting and ALL the candidates were left with only the issues to discuss?

Posted by Mark Gisleson | September 11, 2008 9:42 AM

The great benefit of reading without personal political filters is that one can catch subtleties which don't play to one perceived direction or the other.

I know she (nor the reporters) didn't mean it this way, but did anyone else catch that with the way Andrews' quote was presented, it could be reasonably interpreted as an extraordinarily politically incorrect non sequitor?

Posted by JohnnyZoom | September 11, 2008 10:15 AM

"rape victims in the town in which Palin was mayor, had to pay for their forensic tests"

1) is this a policy over which the mayor had control?
2) is it a policy that changed during Mayor Palin's tenure?
3) is the policy an issue that was raised during the mayor's tenure?

Why is it something that's even being raised? If mayor Palin implemented the policy, its fair game. If mayor Palin was asked to change the policy, and chose not to, its fair game. But if its nothing that came up during her tenure, why are we talking about it?

Posted by bsimon | September 11, 2008 1:23 PM

According to an article in today's USA Today, this is an issue that came to the attention of the state legislature in 2000 after women from the Wasilla area complained about it. That would have been within the time of Mayor Palin's tenure.
The legislature quickly passed a law to change this, but the police cheif of Wasilla (who was selected by Palin after she fired his predecessor supposedly for not fully supporting her) was against the new law, due to the concern of its impact on taxpayers. He openly stated this to the local media at the time.
To my knowledge at this point, Palin's rep. will give absolutely no comment on what the mayor's position was on the issue or when it came to her attention.
However, since this law was brought about by policies in her town, I would expect her to have weighed in on it and would find it quite strange if she didn't. It's a fairly important issue in a state that is said to have the highest rate of rape in the US.

Posted by Jennifer B | September 11, 2008 2:00 PM

You are wrong about Illinois and Obama. There have been numerous complaints about Illinois and how they charge rape victims for rape kits. Obama's law only paid for people who did not have insurance, if you have insurance then you have to pay.

Posted by Robert Johnson | September 11, 2008 3:37 PM

So, 8 years ago Alaska forced an end to the Wasilla policy? That means it had nothing to do with Sarah Palin's reign, but of the "good ol' boys" network she so proudly claims to have abolished. I'm no Palin fan, but I see a need to make sure the story is not deliberately misleading...

Posted by Mary | September 12, 2008 10:21 AM

Er, no, Mary. The policy was in effect when Palin was mayor of the town.

Posted by HR puff | September 12, 2008 10:32 AM

The policy CAME INTO effect 2 years after Palin was elected mayor. When victims complained nothing happened until the state (under the 'good ol' boys) passed a law forcing the change.

Posted by Quidam | September 12, 2008 10:48 AM

Read Obama's legislation. It still allows victims to be charged for rape kits, it just allows them to claim compensation.

Alaskans have been able to claim compensation since 1971 from the Violent Crimes Compensation Board.

Posted by Roscoe | September 12, 2008 10:53 PM

Sarah Palin WAS aware of this policy. In fact she even signed off on it in her local government budget.

"Palin, as mayor, fired police chief Irl Stambaugh and replaced him with Charlie Fannon, who with Palin's knowledge, slashed the budget for the exams and began charging the city's victims of sexual assault. The city budget documents demonstrate Palin read and signed off on the new budget. A year later, alarmed Alaska lawmakers passed legislation outlawing the practice."

You can read the full article here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html

Posted by DingoDave | September 13, 2008 4:08 PM

North Carolina, home of John Edwards, just changed the law this spring. It's not uncommon, and is still on the books in MIssouri. If you're shot, you get charged for the ambulence ride to the ER.

So, how many women paid out of pocket for rape kits when Palin was mayor?

Posted by Rachel | September 14, 2008 7:05 PM

When you get shot, you don't have to prove you've been shot. The analogy would be being charged for the ballistics tests.

Posted by Bob Collins | September 14, 2008 8:20 PM

"So, how many women paid out of pocket for rape kits when Palin was mayor?"

Ask Sarah. All we know is that after she replaced the police chief that didn't charge the victims, the amount spent per annum for kits dropped in a couple of years from over $11,000 to under $300.

Sorry. I forgot that Sarah isn't taking questions.

Posted by Richard | September 15, 2008 5:00 PM

The listed bill does not detail what actions fall under the Crime Victims Compensation Act and only details amendments to the act itself.

If you look for the actual act in the legal registry for the state, rape kits are normally charged for BUT the state medical insurance covers them so that there is no charge to the recipient if they are on that state plan (not mandatory, IIRC).

Part of the amendments in this bill is to extend the CVCA to cover those who DON'T have the state medical insurance, allowing them to claim compensation for the kit's cost.

Posted by Wight | September 15, 2008 8:56 PM

Thanks for clarifying, DingoDave. I just like to get my stories straight. :-)

Posted by Mary | September 16, 2008 12:37 PM

The thing is, victims in Wasilla did NOT have to pay for their kits *until* Palin was Mayor. According to city records, the new police chief Palin picked to succeed the chief she fired (allegedly because he would not fire her ex-brother-in-law), removed payment for kits from his budget. Palin approved his budget, therefore approving the new policy of refusing to pay for the kits.

Rachel - As Richard said, the budget in the year before the new chief of police was installed showed about $11,000 going towards rape kits. The next year showed a little over $200. So, I'd say a significant number of women in a town of about 6,000 were hit with this lovely bill.

As for shooting victims being charged for the ambulance ride, rape kits are not necessary (my own assumption) for the survival of the victim. They are used to collect evidence to capture and convict the criminal. A woman (or man), I suppose, does not *have* to undergo the humiliating, uncomfortable procedure to collect evidence. She/he would, though, in order to convict the a)(&(*& who raped her. To have to pay to convict your assailant is absurd and inhuman.

Posted by kz the turtlegirl | September 17, 2008 8:47 AM

This whole thing is nutty, using nice words here.

I read through blogs and news articles since this surfaced and as a recent victim of violent rape here is target="_blank">what I had to say.

Victoria Placeo

Posted by Victoria Placeo | September 18, 2008 3:58 PM

What none of you seem to mention (unless I've missed it in some way), is that it is not unusual to be charged for a rape kit in ANY U.S. city, much less Wasilla, AK. For instance, charging for rape kits is an effective statute throughout the entire state of North Carolina.

Yes, the charge can range anywhere from $300 to $1,300 (in larger cities) and it is charged to either the person's insurance or if their insurance does not cover it, can be billed to them at a later date, by the hospital.

Although there is some opposition to charging for rape kits, it is also a deterrent for those who may be tempted to falsely charge a man with rape. Rape is a serious crime to charge someone with and billing victims for the rape kits, prompts the accuser(s) to take it more seriously.

Posted by Lisa | September 19, 2008 4:28 PM

I'm not sure you read the initial post, Lisa, but there was a section in there about North Carolina.

But to your point, actually it IS unusual to charge a victim for the rape kit. I'm not sure where you're getting your information that it is not.

In no community that I'm aware of is there any intention to use the policy to deter women from filing false claims of rape. If you have some source for your information, I'd be grateful if you'd post it here.

Thanks.

Posted by Bob Collins | September 19, 2008 5:32 PM

kz the turtlegirl .... The Wallisa Police Chief had no bearing on the Wooten Case. Wooten was a State Trooper. The Mayor or Wasilla police chief had no control over a State Trooper.

Some one explain to me the difference between the 2001 Illinois bill vs. the Alaska's Crime Victims Compensation Act? I don't understand the specifics about who pays and who doesn't pay?

Posted by candace | September 22, 2008 12:26 PM

September 2008
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30

Master Archive

MPR News
Radio

Listen Now

On Air

Midday

Schedule

Shortcuts
Hourly Newscast
Hosts
Station Map

Other Radio Streams from MPR

Classical MPR
Radio Heartland

Services

Become a Sponsor

In The Spotlight

Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web.
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.