Palin pro-rape?

So I feel like perhaps some anti-Palin fervor has been dwindling after generally ridiculous antic-less debate with Biden and we just can't have that now can we? So here we go with another story about why this mindless moose-eating robot should not have the second highest office in the land. (Though not as she believes the most important).

Apparently, while Sarah-dearest was mayor of Wasilla, the town, under the direction of her police chief began charging rape victims or their insurance companies for rape-kits and post-assault examinations. Now this was not something that she was directly in charge of (at least on paper) or that some could argue that she might even have known about. Except that because this practice was occuring in rural Alaska, in 2000 the state legislature tried to pass a bill preventing sexual assault victims from being charged for forensic tests. Which led to an outcry from the police chief who said in print:

Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman (May 23, 2000): "In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victim's insurance company when possible. I just don't 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.

Now if I was the mayor of a small town and I found out, in a newspaper (which of course she read all of) that my police chief was promoting the practice of charging rape victims to collect evidence of a criminal act, I would be pretty pissed. And that he was leading a fight against state legislation preventing this for 6 months?! But is there any record that Palin did anything about it? Nope. When it was first brought to national attention (of which there has been very little but some) did she rush forth with an explanation of what she did about it? Nope. And keep in mind that the Alaska rape rate (as of 2005) is 2.5 times the national average. And that is the number of reported rapes. It is believed that the rate of actually reporting rape is only 16% (as of 1992, in Utah [highest rape rates in the country] this year it was reported that only 12% of rape victims report their crimes to police). And as late as 2005 30% of victims in Alaska who tried to reach victim support services couldnt because there were none available. So in that sort of atmosphere, is it really a good idea to decrease the likelihood of reporting sexual assault because their insurance company (if they are insured and it is covered) or they will get charged for it?

So let's say for the benefit of the doubt, best case scenario, that Sarah Palin had absoutely no idea that this was happening in her fair town of Wasilla. Is that good? That in a town of just over 5000 people (in 2000) you do not know about an outrage suck as this? And that when you did find out about it you did nothing publicly? I think that is simply beyond awful. I'm just sayin'.