Palin rape kit controversy, where it stands.

[riverdeep]

Bloggers are getting excited at what they believe is a sure thing. While at first blush this seems to be a slam dunk issue, it gets complicated.

A short timeline is in order. The previous police chief of Wasilla, Stambaugh, is fired. Under his department, the practice of charging the victim or victim's insurance carriers for rape kits is NOT done. In comes Fannon, who institutes this policy specifically to lower expenses. He says he would prefer the criminal pay in restitution. While I agree with that, what about the ones that are never caught? And who pays in the meantime? His answer was to charge the victim or victims's insurance carrier. I don't know which or in which proportions. Even if it was the carrier, they often have a co-pay. A rape kit is primarily an evidence gathering tool, not primarily a medical procedure, although there may be something like emergency contraceptive contained within. Although Wasilla was not the only town in Alaska to have done this, they appear to have been the source of the most complaints, leading to a statewide ban on the practice in 2000.

Now, the connection to Palin. Was she aware of this practice? There is a new entry on huffingtonpost that claims they have proof. Here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html

However, it contains at least one flaw. It claims the signature given on the report references the entire report's contents. It actually only references the certification program for outstanding report preparation. This is enough for critics to pounce, ANY sloppiness, is grounds for dismissal of the entire claim. However, under the Wasilla municipal code, one of the duties of mayor is the preparation of a budget, as well as presiding over the city council meetings (meaning 'the city council did it without her awareness' argument is less plausible). So theoretically her signature is there, regardless. Additionally, the fact that the state government had to step in indicates that the issue, while it may have started out a minor issue, certainly didn't remain that way. Either she approved of it (which goes against what she now claims), or she was unaware of an issue that had to be dealt with above her head. The question becomes, at what level of detail is she responsible? And was this some arcane procedure she would have no awareness of, or a controversy she would have heard?

I certainly don't believe that Chief Fannon was chosen specifically to oppress women. He was chosen for political reasons (cool with the NRA) and his budgetary vision matched hers. My guess is that although she was responsible for the budget, it may not have been something that jumped out at her. Later on however, her ignorance becomes less plausible.

This, to me, is not an airtight case. She can use the same defense that Rumsfeld used in Abu graib, it was out of my day to day affairs, and in this case it may be true. Even if the buck does stop with her, the public will be told it was not her normal duties.

Now, the other players. Biden- he's covered here, having sponsored the Violence Against Women Act. McCain, he's vulnerable since he voted against it, although he probably did it because it was an omnibus package that also contained a ban on assault weapons. And Obama, while he definitely gets points for introducing legislation that made sure that if you were uninsured or poor you would be compensated, the fact is Illinois also charged women's insurance the same way. Whether it is a local matter won't be the issue, it could only work as an argument if Illinois didn't do it or if Obama took steps to stop the practice of charging women at all, not just if they are poor.

My takeaway, this won't be a good issue for us. Too much room for plausible deniability on their side, and a similar practice on our side. Much better to go with her stated views on reproductive rights, which are stunningly medieval. Frame the issue as 'big government', government so big that it interferes between you and your doctor. This way some of the moderate, married white women in the McCain camp can be tilted Dem.

[Breeze54]

1. She was the mayor. She signed. She's responsible.

Great post but voters aren't going to look at all the nitty gritty details, as you have so eloquently reasoned out in your OP. The bottom line is, there are approximately 6 weeks to the election. She's a RW fundie republican and she's against choice and she okayed the practice by signing off on that as the mayor and charging the victims of rape for using a rape kit, under her watch, is unconscionable and the bottom line is she's responsible for it! Period! It also shows that she's incompetent if she signed it without "knowing" what she was signing.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. The Buck Stops Here.

[riverdeep]

4. She is responsible.

Just like people don't read the fine print on a contract, if they get burned, they're responsible. Being the mayor of the town, the buck stops with her.

However, that's what right vs. wrong. I'm thinking strictly in pragmatic terms. I can tell you with 95% certainty if this becomes an issue what the McCain camp will say,

"I wasn't in charge of that level of detail, I just didn't know."

and

"Obama's own state of Illinois also charged rape victim's insurance carriers."

If we had unshakable evidence that she knew, and our hands were clean, I'd say put out an ad tomorrow, but we don't. That's my take anyway, YMMV.

[enough]

2. I think you're right that our focus should be on her "medieval" views on abortion/choice.

But I think the phrase "reproductive rights" is too abstract for most people. I would focus on the idea of "forced childbearing" for victims of rape and incest. The idea that the rapist has more rights than the victim, and the deep deep cruelty of this.

The rape-kit thing simply re-enforces that idea, especially since the rape-kit is the tool by which the rapist might be caught and prosecuted. (And all of this in a state which has the highest sexual assault rate in the country, three times higher than the next state.)

Thank you for putting so much thought into this, riverdeep.

[BeyondGeography]

5. Agree that the ticket shouldn't go near it

if only to spare Obama having to look defensive over the state of IL's insurance practices.

Great analysis.