Sally&#39;s Journal

The fact that she supported it is enough for me. It’s not like she’s as paragon of empathy when it comes to women’s rights.

Edited Date: 2008-09-10 05:09 pm (UTC)

From:

elethiomel.livejournal.com

We don't know that she supported it.

All we know for certain are that the law making it illegal to charge complainants for rape-kits came into effect in May 2000 (about half way through Palin's term) and that Charlie Fannon, Police Chief of Wasilla voiced an objection on the basis of increased tax-burden.

And what he actually said(source: The Frontiersman (http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt) was:

"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.

According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases.

"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.

So, his comments are more measured than the headlines suggest and we have no evidence of any involvement by Palin herself.

From:

Ok, fair enough, we don’t know if she was involved (I don’t trust the media most of the time), but she was certainly in as position to change things, and with her policies on reproductive rights, it wouldn’t surprise me.

Edited Date: 2008-09-10 05:33 pm (UTC)

From:

melsner.livejournal.com

Wow. do victims also need to the rapist back for his condom and gas money?

From:

This is clearly an unpleasant situation, and certainly rape kit charges are distasteful.

It is, however, misleading to suggest that this is an issue restricted to Alaska, or indeed that Sarah Palin introduced or actively supported the measure.

As you can see from this article (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-health-and-money/2008/02/21/rape-victims-can-be-hurt-financially-too.html), the problem is widespread, and in fact continues to exist in the US even though it hasn't existed in Alaska since the legislation in 2000 cited in the original article.

Notably, if this is going to be used as an attack on Sarah Palin, worth having a look at a couple of things.

Firstly, we have no claim that Sarah Palin introduced the policy. We know that the Wasilla police department charged victim's insurance companies for the rape kits. We don't know if it was within the remit of the Mayor to overrule police procedures. We can also point out that clearly Sarah Palin hasn't rescinded any legislation as governor.

And perhaps more importantly, lets look at some states where the practice still apparently exists as reported by case workers. Because this is clearly going to be jumped upon by liberals and democrats as some exacmple of Sarah Palin being particularly cruel and unfeeling, where that's not the case.

Arkansas (Democratic Governor)
Georgia (Republican Governor)
North Carolina (Democratic Governor) (see related article (http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:_ehKvboFfJAJ:www.dailytarheel.com/news/2008/02/22/StateNational/State.Rethinks.Rape.Kit.Funding-3228032.shtml+rape+kit+charges&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=25&gl=uk&client=firefox-a))

...and perhaps most pertinently if this is going to be used to differentiate between Democrats and Republicans...Illinois. Which means that eight years after the Governor of Alaska introduced a change, Barack Obama never addressed the issue either on a state basis when he was in the Illinois state senate, or on a national level while (as he still is) Senator for Illinois.

It is highly unpleasant that the practice exists. It is also highly unpleasant for it to be used as a smear specific to Sarah Palin.

From:

Why does a pro-life stance equate to an unwillingness to help investigate the crime of rape?

From:

SArah Palin has said in the past that she's anti-abortion, even in cases of rape, which pings to a lot of people as 'has no compassion for rape victims'. Therefore, it's a bit easier to believe that she would think things like 'well, they can pay for their own rape sample kits'. Most of her recrod seems to mostly say "women should just keep their damn legs shut" and feels (whether it is or not) as vaguely misogynistic.

From:

Then I think this needs to be raised with regards to Barack Obama as well. But it still needs to be raised with Sarah Palin. Because it's an icky practice, even if it does involve charging insurance companies.

From:

Well, we can probably refer to previous discussions in regard to the "has no compassion" vs "unfair on innocent baby" opinions we have. :)

Actually her record in regards to sex education is reasonably good. Despite the way she's been tagged, she is not in fact a supporrter of "abstinence only" sex education. She's said she's a supporter of contraception being part of sex education, as well as abstinence being discussed and promoted. I think that's an eminently reasonable way to apporach the issue.

From:

But it won't be, not at all. Yes, it's an icky practice. It's something that Obama has done arguably less to address than Sarah Palin - because by the time she became Governor in Alaska the issue was already addressed, and we have very little detail on what powers she had (if any) to change police department policy in Wasilla.

But this is an election year. It's clear from a Google search that without any kind of time spent researching facts, *all* you will get is lots of blogs smearing or repeating the accusation "Sarah Palin made women pay for rape kits". It'll be used merely as a smear against Palin, regardless of the facts and regardless of the general practices in many states in the US.

From:

Because they are both issues which affect the bodily rights of women. If Palin gets into power, she will make abortion illegal, and in the case of rape victims, make them carry their child to term. This is psychological punishment in itself.

From:

crocodilewings.livejournal.com

Do you want something to be wrong with the Send A Cow scheme?

From:

Well, a couple of things there. Firstly, as I've explained on other posts on

annwyfn's livejournal, I don't believe that abortion is solely about the bodily rights of women, it's also about the bodily rights of an unborn child.

Perhaps more importantly, no, Palin clearly won't make abortion illegal, nor force rape victims to carry babies to term. To suggest such is inaccurate. At best (or worst, depending on your point of view), a McCain/Palin administration may have the opportunity to appoint new Supreme Court judges. Constructionist judges may overturn Roe vs Wade.

Overturning Roe vs Wade in no way mades abortion illegal. What it would do is remove the idea that there exists in the US Constitution an unquestionable right to an abortion. At that point abortion legislation would be something that would be drawn up on a state by state basis, and would therefore be open to effective debate and legilsation would be made by accountable and democratically elected bodies.

From:

I don't believe that abortion is solely about the bodily rights of women, it's also about the bodily rights of an unborn child.

But ESPECIALLY the rights of the unborn child, right? Women are obsolete when it comes to the "rights" of the fetus. That's why it's about women's bodily autonomy. We are no longer seen as people, but as vessels for the babies.

Overturning Roe vs Wade in no way mades abortion illegal. What it would do is remove the idea that there exists in the US Constitution an unquestionable right to an abortion. At that point abortion legislation would be something that would be drawn up on a state by state basis, and would therefore be open to effective debate and legilsation would be made by accountable and democratically elected bodies.

And you seriously think the people in power aren't going to change anything? With a country promoting abstinence only education, creationism in schools, and close to drafting a bill that says contraception can be marked as "abortion?" And I don't see the problem with having an unquestionable right to abortion. Fuck going back to the back alleys and gutters and bleeding to death.

edit: Also, I have no idea where you got that abortions will be an unquestionable right anyway, since the central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid.

Edited Date: 2008-09-11 10:44 am (UTC)

From:

But ESPECIALLY the rights of the unborn child, right? Women are obsolete when it comes to the "rights" of the fetus. That's why it's about women's bodily autonomy.

Except that except in a tiny minority of choices, the rights for the woman are not so starkly defined as life vs death. Not having an abortion doesn't mean a life is ended. Having an abortion means that one is.

We are no longer seen as people, but as vessels for the babies.

Or, to be fair, Vice Presidential candidates.

And you seriously think the people in power aren't going to change anything? With a country promoting abstinence only education, creationism in schools, and close to drafting a bill that says contraception can be marked as "abortion?"

No, and frankly I'd be amazed if they did. Not only because of the massive increase in the scope of the federal government that would involve, but even for the purely practical reason that they'd have no chance of getting it passed. Given that in the instance of a McCain/Palin win you'd have a Republican executive branch of government and a heavily Democratic legislative branch in both the House and Senate, it simply wouldn't happen.

To address some of your other points;

The US federal government uses 0.0017% of the federal budget to provide additional funding to US states to promote abstinence only sex education. That's $50 million out of a $2.8 trillion budget. States and local school districts have an absolute right to refuse this funding and to set their sex education policy as they see fit, as indeed a number of states have done.

Nor is there any particular evidence of the federal government using any funds to promote creationism in schools. Again, under the US system, this is something that is almost entirely decided by state and other local authorities. Perhaps also worth noting that Sarah Palin pledged (and subsequently kept the pledge) not to try and push any kind of creationist policy on Alaskan schools as governor, and has stated that while she thinks free discussion on the issue is fine there is no reason why creationism would need to be part of any curriculum.

In regards to drafting legislation that says contraception can be marked as abortion, I'll quote the US health secretary Michael Levitt from August 11;

""An early draft of the regulations found its way into public circulation before it had reached my review. It contained words that lead some to conclude my intent is to deal with the subject of contraceptives, somehow defining them as abortion. Not true.""

And I don't see the problem with having an unquestionable right to abortion.

Well clearly that's the insoluble part of the equation, because a pro-choice or pro-life stance is ultimately a moral stance to take and not one that's going to be resolved by argument one way or another.

I have no idea where you got that abortions will be an unquestionable right anyway.

Because that's what Roe vs Wade says - that there is a constitutional right to an abortion, which therefore trumps any alternative legislation that might exist on either a federal or a state basis.

From:

No. I'd like it to be a lovely perfect scheme. On a personal level, I really really like the sound of it. I was just vaguely curious as to what these criticisms that the writer was clearly brushing over might be, and worrying that I wasn't thinking this all through.

From:

crocodilewings.livejournal.com

It covers the criticisms pretty well, I thought. Carbon footprint (independently appraised as somewhere between negligible and optimal), echoes of Imperialism (which it clearly doesn't) and drawing on the handouts-keep-people-poor school of thought, (when actually this isn't a hand-to-mouth bequeathment but a clever economic adjustment, so, y'know, durr to the cargo-cult argument-pedallers).

By all means, think it's wonderful. By all accounts, it is.

From:

No, Leavitt is pretending he didn’t say that, and quite frankly is back-pedalling. This is what the first draft of the proposal said:

The Department proposes to define abortion as 'any of the various procedures -- including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation

Leavitt’s words:

“An early draft of the regulations found its way into public circulation before it had reached my review. It contained words that lead some to conclude my intent is to deal with the subject of contraceptives, somehow defining them as abortion. Not true.”

Because politicians NEVER lie.

Because that's what Roe vs Wade says - that there is a constitutional right to an abortion, which therefore trumps any alternative legislation that might exist on either a federal or a state basis

Uh…no. It doesn’t. Roe v Wade is based on circumstances in the trimesters. The rule that it should be available on demand only works up until the point that the fetus is viable.

The state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health", and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother").

From:

Oh, and don't even think about lecturing me on "the rights for the woman are not so starkly defined as life vs death. Not having an abortion doesn't mean a life is ended. Having an abortion means that one is."

I am the grandchild of a rapist.

Edited Date: 2008-09-11 12:07 pm (UTC)

From:

Palin is also against abortion in cases where the mother'#s life is at risk. It's one of the things that makes me most uncomfortable. She wants to force women intoa position where they have to sit, with something inside them that is killing them, unable to get rid of it. On a visceral level, that freaks me out. I can't imagine how that must feel like.

From:

elethiomel.livejournal.com

Because politicians NEVER lie.

'course they do. Just like everybody else. Not this time though. Read what the original draft actually said

"any of the various procedures... that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth"
(Emphasis added).

'Between conception and natural birth', by its very definition does not include contraception (with the possible grey area of the 'morning after pill').

So Mr. Leavitt is neither back-pedalling nor lying in this instance, I'm afraid.

From:

No, Leavitt is pretending he didn’t say that, and quite frankly is back-pedalling.

At that point Leavitt hadn't even seen the draft, and when the language became public the flaws in how it could be interpreted were pointed out, the language was removed and the clarification made. You're making the leap from the argument that politicians lie sometimes to the argument that they always do, and that your opinion on whether Leavitt is being truthful is fact.

Uh…no. It doesn’t. Roe v Wade is based on circumstances in the trimesters. The rule that it should be available on demand only works up until the point that the fetus is viable.

None of which denies the point that Roe v Wade provides a constitutional right to an abortion up to the third trimester, with only limited regulation (but no denial of the right) in the second trimester.

From: