Palin's Fetal Position
We really don't need to know anything more about the Sarah Palin celebrity action figure.
We don't need to know where she buys her glasses, when she decided to start wearing her hair in an up-do or how she handles the demands of motherhood and government work.
We don't even need to hear her answers on energy policy, the Iraq war or God's will.
What an awful lot of voters really need to know about Palin may already have been revealed -- years ago -- by one dark and unforgivable policy instituted under her watch as mayor of the small town of Wasilla.
After taking office in 1996, she allowed the town's police department to begin charging rape victims for the forensic work done in their cases. She signed off on the budget that detailed the new police policy -- a directive instituted by her hand-picked police chief after she fired his predecessor. The unexplained reversal in Wasilla's procedure dictated that rape victims, unlike the victims of other crimes, now would have to pay for the investigative work done at the crime scene.
In a rape case, of course, the crime scene is the woman's body.
When Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the town suddenly started charging rape victims between $300 and $1200 to have the rapist's DNA and other forensic evidence taken, tested, cataloged and investigated.
That meant that women who came to local police for help after being battered, brutalized and victimized, faced one more violation. These women had to pay for the privilege of having their cases treated as crimes.
Palin's then-police chief Charlie Fannon defended this policy with the explanation that he wanted to save taxpayers' money. He said the raped women's insurance policies were billed -- when possible. In those cases, the women only had to pay the deductible. Of course, this being America, many women were uninsured, unprotected from both their attackers and the big bills.
Gee, thanks, guys.
Oddly enough, Fannon did not make the same kind of choice in other criminal cases. He did not make people injured by hit-and-run drivers or mugging victims or the families of murdered men and women cough up money to investigate their cases or collect evidence to catch their attackers.
It only happened in rape cases.
Hmmm.
Now, why would that be?
There is one terrible possibility: that this happened because somebody in charge in Wasilla -- either the police chief or the Mayor or both -- hails from the craziest corner of the pro-life community, the people who believe that birth control is abortion.
These people oppose paying for forensic work in rape cases because as part of that process -- as a final step in a humiliating and dehumanizing procedure -- a woman is typically asked if she would like a "morning after" pill, a medication that will prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the lining of her uterus. The treatment is believed to be about 80% effective in preventing pregnancy.
Sarah Palin has not deigned to take questions from the unwashed masses in the media, but if she ever does, this might be a good place to begin.
Does she believe that giving a rape victim a "morning after" pill is committing murder? Does Palin believe that the taxpayers shouldn't pay for this or that police shouldn't offer this as a matter of course? Does she really believe that a woman should have to bear the child of her rapist?
We already know that's what she would want for her daughter.
During her successful gubernatorial campaign in 2006, Palin declared that she would not choose an abortion for her daughter -- then 14 years old -- even if the girl was raped and became pregnant. "I would choose life," Palin said.
Eric Croft suspects that these pro-life beliefs were the reason behind Wasilla's no pay police policy on rape victims.
He is the Democratic legislator who got the system changed by sponsoring a state proposal in 2000 that required local police departments in Alaska to pay for victims' "rape kits," as the evidence-gathering process is called. He wrote the bill with Wasilla's misguided police procedure in mind.
Croft told me that he was working at the time with a victim support group called "STAR" -- for Standing Together Against Rape. "We kept hearing reports out of the Mat-Su Valley that a police department there was charging for rape kits," Croft says. "We didn't know who it was."
Finally, a rape victim came forward with a copy of her insurance bill, which listed the rape kit charges filed by Wasilla police. Croft says his organization contacted the town's police chief who confirmed the policy but could not be convinced to change it.
Croft says he was dumbfounded. "I thought they'd be shamed out of it. But they weren't. They weren't."
So he proposed a change in state law. As a result, there were public hearings, public testimony and overwhelming public support. The bill passed unanimously. Democratic Governor Tony Knowles made a point of signing the bill into law in front of cameras outside a sexual assault clinic.
The amazing thing is that, through all of this, Palin herself apparently didn't speak publicly, didn't come out for or against her police chief's policy, didn't take responsibility for what her town was doing to already wounded women.
Part of what makes this suspicious is that Wasilla's policy is not the first time rape victims have found themselves in the crosshairs of the country's culture wars over abortion.
In fact, their bodies have long been a battleground.
Right-to-life groups around the country have often stepped into rape cases, fighting to make sure that pharmacists, police and medical personnel don't have to participate in procedures they deem "immoral."
From the Deep South to South Dakota, from Missouri to Arizona, rape victims have too long had to fight for the kind of equality and empathy that other crime victims can regularly expect.
The question of emergency contraception -- who gets it, who pays for it and who gets to decide -- is at the heart of this heated debate.
A few years ago, there was a dustup down here in Texas, when a pharmacist in a Dallas suburb refused to fill a rape victim's prescription for the "morning after" pill, saying that he couldn't dispense the medication "because it ends life." This poor woman had to go to a different pharmacy in order to protect herself in the most personal, most private, most important way possible.
When the story became public, dozens of outraged Texas women showed up outside the pharmacy with signs saying, "Rape violates my morals."
Those same women -- and thousands more who feel the same way -- could be headed for a Republican rally soon if Sarah doesn't start talking.
Her partner in the old policy seems to have gone to ground.
Charles Fannon, the former police chief, now has a disconnected home phone number.
And Sarah Palin seems to be in the process of completely disconnecting herself from the policy.
Palin's spokeswoman, Maria Comella, told USA Today in an e-mail last week that the Governor "does not believe, nor has she ever believed that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test.
"Governor Palin's position could not be more clear. To suggest otherwise is a deliberate misrepresentation of her commitment to supporting victims and bringing violent criminals to justice."
According to USA Today, Comilla would not answer other questions, including when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it.
Maybe this is all some kind of unthinkable misunderstanding. Maybe Palin didn't know this was happening, didn't hear about it even the whole state joined the conversation, maybe this tough-talking Mayor couldn't control her police chief.
Maybe she has changed over the years, maybe she now recognizes the immorality of treating rape victims this way.
Whatever the answer -- before we vote -- before we are treated to another story about her taste in shoes or her time as Governor, would someone please pin Palin down and ask her what the hell was going on with rape victims in Wasilla?
And more importantly, why?
This person who says she's prepared to be a heartbeat away from the presidency could clear this whole thing up in a heartbeat.
Why won't she?
When Palin's name was announced as McCain's vice-presidential pick, I initially viewed her as some kind of sop to disgruntled Clinton supporters, somebody who was supposed to appeal to those of us who would rather have seen Hillary at the head of the ticket.
In the campaign, Palin has been presented as a kind of born-again Christian comic book hero -- the ultimate in multi-tasking mothers -- a woman who flies around the country in labor, kills big animals in the woods and dictates the details of other people's lives while juggling babies, Bibles and bullets.
It is beginning to look like she may be something colder, creepier and more complicated.
She has run Alaska like Dick Cheney in drag, a person who thrives on secrecy, loyalty and control.
On foreign policy, she's reminiscent of George W. Bush, without the sparkling curiosity.
And if she worked to deny rape victims emergency contraception, she is women voters' worst nightmare -- she is Phyllis Schlaffly with PMS, power and an automatic weapon.
It is long past time to figure out who Sarah Palin really is.
Getting answers on how and why she allowed her hometown to adopt a policy towards crime victims that was so beyond the pale, so outside the bounds of human decency, so heartless is a good place to begin.
In the end, it may be all we need to know.
Like Sarah Palin, I believe in the power of prayer.
I am praying that reporters can pull themselves out of the fetal position and start asking Palin some hard questions -- about hers.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This isn't female friendly politics, this is female-fiendly politics.
Those wanting to vote for McCain/Palin due to the cracks in the glass ceiling should all consider the duos anti-choice positions, anti-equal pay positions, anti-environmental politics.
(Add warmongering and the "economy is in good shape" positions, and consider what kind of judges these people would like to appoint, if you don't think what's mentioned above is wrong-direction-change enough.)
These people won't crack the ceiling. If they're elected to office, they want to "mend it" with bullet-proof glass
Ms. Mapes, I applaud your comparison to Dick Cheney and George Bush, they couldn't be more spot on. The person she seems most comparible to might be Leona Hemsley. She desperately needs attention, thinks of herself only in the most self aggrandizing ways, with bravado proportionate only to her lack of knowledge and experience, and seems more than comtemptuous of the 'little people'. It certainly is justifiable to falsey bill for large travel per diem, and to balance the budget elsewhere by denying payment for rape victims hospital services. It seems the very model of what 'compassionate conservatism' would connote.
It really is time that the campaign starts making more of an issue of Sarah Palin's beliefs. They really are not the type of belief system we need in charge of an entire country, especially if we want to preserve the separation of church and state.
www.imPALIN.com to read more of my comments and contribute your own articles on this issue of Palin.
"the Governor "does not believe, nor has she ever believed that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test."
Then why in the h8ll is her signature on the document that instituted the policy?!
You're asking a question - which isn't allowed you know. By doing so you're not showing "deference". You are also not allowing her to defy logic, ignore facts, and refuse to believe that the America she would be Vice President of has actual Americans in it.
The problem with this is that the abortion/morning after pill isn't actually the point. The real point is that in our country we have law enforcement. They investigate and prosecute any crime. To do this they need evidence. And in this one area - because it might potentially offend Palin's religious beliefs - law enforcement is not allowed to do its job, to be blind justice and to gather facts. When you require a victim to pay for their own evidence in proof of a crime you interfere with the legal process.
She victimized the victim, but she also victimized the law itself. Now remind me again someone, of why I should even have to seriously consider her as a potential protector of the constitution? I'm sorry - that was a logical question. It's not.....deferential.
What I want to know, is why do both Palin and McCain so obviously want all the rapists and paedophiles go free without a punishment?
Some time ago, when I was living in Houston, Texas, a friend in the DA's office informed me that certain communities like Pasadena, Texas, were intentionally holding onto rape kit evidence too long, so that when the forensic labs finally obtained it, it was unusable (this was in the early '80's). There were other communities in Harris County, Texas were the police and sheriff's deputies were engaging in the same behavior.
Sarah Palin's actions result from a fundamentalist deep-seated hatred of women, supposedly authorized by the OT. People like Palin obviously believe that women, whatever their age, their physical condition, or their appearance or manner of dress, have incited men to act upon their uncontrollable lusts. Why don't they just put women in Burkas and stick them into rooms where they can't contact anyone outside their families?
Because women like Palin and Phyllis Schlafly are self-aggrandizers. They want all the benefits of feminism, but want to deny them to all other women.
As to the govt. officers who were holding on to the rape kits, not all of them were "religious", I'm sure. They just hated women.
I have experienced a violent rape, sexual molestation, and incest in my lifetime and I can tell you without blinking that I would absolutely have had an abortion if at any time I had become pregnant. I don't 'like' abortion any more than anyone else who values human life, but if you've never had that kind of trauma, any negative judgement you make about the victim really means nothing because you know nothing.
I can also tell you that making a person pay for the prosecution of her (or his) worst violation of their lives is quite literally -- evil. You already wish you were dead, now you have to pay for justice? Oh, Mrs. Palin..... I will never vote for you.
I am sorry for you, having experienced what you have. But I am profoundly thankful for you sharing it, and I hope the empathy you're showing towards other victims will spread to other people, and especially to those thinking it's not "that big a deal" if a woman (or a man, men are raped too) has to go through the extra violation of the crime comitted against her (him) not being taken seriously - having to pay for it to be taken seriously - if she can afford it.
It is a big deal. This signals that rape is a "second-rate" crime, not "that serious", something only "whining women" care about.
And that is not the kind of change anyone but rapists should welcome.
Alaska has the highest incidence, per capita, of sexual assault and incest in the nation. Poor women have a disproportionately higher incidence of rape than women of means.
Without a rape kit, valuable forensic evidence in the form of DNA evidence is lost.
I can't help but wonder if Sarah Palin signed off on charging for the rape kits because she was seeking to protect someone she knew from being identified and subsequently prosecuted as a serial rapist.
"Palin declared that she would not choose an abortion for her daughter -- then 14 years old -- even if the girl was raped and became pregnant. "I would choose life," Palin said."
Silly me, I thought it was the daughter's choice to make. But it's good to know that Governor Palin is such a loving mother she'd make her adolescent daughter carry a rapist's child to term...
At 14 years old?
No misunderstanding. Palin signed the budget with the rape kits cut. Could it be that she wasn't paying attention? Possibly, but then that is dereliction of duty. Oversight? Perhaps. But that was HER JOB!
Her campaign and spokespeople are saying the wrong thing. The right thing is to say "I'm sorry, I F'd up missing it/signing it/approving it/supporting it...." Whatever.
But even she does that, I hold no sympathy. That town should make restitution to every single woman wronged, including punitive damages for emotional distress.
They violated women's civil rights by making the handling of the crime against them different from other crimes. Wonder if there were any male rape victims reported? It does happen to men, too, but usually in the teen-still-juvenile end.
Did they do this with child victims as well?
This makes me want to vomit.
Incredibly, the town justified this by saying that they could bill the insurance companies for the evidence gathering (NOT medical) procedure, So much for the victim's privacy. Once the rape kit is billed to the victim's insurance company, it becomes part of the victim's MEDICAL file.
What is most apalling is that poor women are at a greater risk for becoming rape victims and are more likely to be raped than women of means. Are we to understand that poor women who could not pay the $1200 for the "rape kit" were denied the procedure which gathers DNA evidence that can then be used to identify and hopefully prosecute the rapist? How criminal.
Every day this nightmare becomes worse and worse. I haven't been this frightened since the Cuban Missile crisis, and then thank god we had a leader with a brain in his head. If the likes of McCain/Palin were in charge, none of us would be here today. To call these people pro-life is a misnomer. They are pro war, death penalty, poverty, violence, anti-women and children. What I can't figure out is, as our country sinks deeper and deeper into economic, political, and social crisis, McCain keeps rising in the polls, Can someone explain this, it doesnt make any sense. Would Americans rather continue this downward spiral of their country and their lives, rather than elect an intelligent, competent, compassionate African american? Is it that simple and disturbing?Nothing else makes sense.
Of course this needs to be investigated and see if or how Palin was involved. The outcome of any investigation will illuminate Palin's willingness to punish women who have been raped according to her religious standards. We just haven't thought we were allowed to do that in this country. If we are, then all voters need to know about it. I'm sure everyone would be amazed at how many teens and women have used emergency birth control or abortion in families that don't publicly support it. Plus there are many of us that support choice. Together, we are a majority in the United states. Why aren't we making some huge noises about this?? I boycotted Target for years when they refused to give the morning after pill. They have lost some big time money from me over time. McKinney, TX
"Of course this needs to be investigated and see if or how Palin was involved."
Its already been investigated. Here is the link: http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/mccain-voted-against-biden-law.html.
Does she believe that giving a rape victim a "morning after" pill is committing murder? Does Palin believe that the taxpayers shouldn't pay for this or that police shouldn't offer this as a matter of course? Does she really believe that a woman should have to bear the child of her rapist?
Are these supposed to be hard questions?
Yes, yes, yes and yes.
Why does she feel that rape is a lesser crime than taking a tablet to prevent a four celled egg developing any further?
Why does she hate women and girls so much?
I am a republican man who believes in a woman's right to choose what she will do with her own body. Including abortion. But, let's not pretty it up, shall we?
I also believe abortion is the killing of an unborn child. And, I have no problem with the death penalty for rapists and murderers. These perspectives seem, to me, to be congruent. Killing, whether by a woman or the state, is the same thing.
If you believe in abortion without due process for the innocent unborn human being then you should be in favor of the death penalty for the guilty. Seems reasonable.
Abortion is absolutely not the same thing as capital punishment. And prevention of the implantation of an egg is even less so.
I am in "favor" of the death penalty for especially heinous crimes, but our justice system is so screwed up, with frame jobs (remember Clarence Brandley and Lanell Jeter), incompetence and fudging of evidence. And wealthy murderers go free because they can hire experts to confuse the jury. Maybe we should adopt some of the methods that are used in western european countries, such as having a very well trained in the law magistrate oversee the collection of evidence. This would prevent innocent people from being sent to death row.
And a fetus is not a person until it's pretty far along. An egg is just some biological matter. When medicine reaches the point where an embryo or early stage fetus can be incubated in a machine, we can have an intelligent discussion on whether the pregnancy can be terminated and whether we're murdering souls. But think about it. How many people would want to know that they're the product of rape or incest? That's a terrible burden to put on any person.
I agree with your general premise, but you do us a disservice by inaccurately describing how the "morning after pill" works. There is no evidence that it prevents implantation. It works by preventing ovulation, the same as any other hormonal pill. That it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting is anti-BC rhetoric. Please please please get to know how these things work. You only spread misinformation and give ammo to the anti-BC mob by failing to educate yourself before posting.
Godweiser hit on something I heard reciently. I want to do some research to confirm it or not, but I heard that Alaska has one of the worst rates for sexual assault. If anyone has links to info on that, I'd be interested in some fact checking.
Anyway, I have seen the stats on sexual assault on the women in our militarty. It is almost twice that of women in the general population - perpetuated by our military men. A small group I'm sure, but one that has been allowed to have thier way withuout much recourse, as the men are being court marshalled at a rate less than half of what their civilian counterparts are being prosecuted.
Hmm - McCain as Camander and Chief of the armed forces with Palin at his side. Would she also make our service women pay for thier investigations? We need a "no tolorance" stance against the sexual assault in our military if we are ever to significantly lower these rates. Somehow, I doubt we would get that with McCain/Palin.
How does Gov. Palin feel about the overpopulation of the planet?
Well, it's on the other side of the part of Russia that she can see, so she doesn't understand the population thing. Also, the part of Canada that Alaska is close to doesn't have many people either.
Whether or not Palin knew about the policy, the fact that she didn't speak up in favor of fixing this appalling state of affairs speaks volumes about how she feels about women's rights. Scary.
If she was a "hands on" mayor (and in a community that size, why wouldn'e she be?), she knew what was happening. If she denies knowing this, then it proves that she does not handle responsibility well.
Yes, pro-lifers are morally inconsistent. What Palin and McCain don't seem to get is that they actually do support abortion. In Palin's case, she agrees to abortion to save a mother's life. McCain also adds in cases of rape and incest. Palin and McCain actually ride the fence and seem to want it both ways. So I ask Palin, who will decide if a mother's life is in danger? This will be arbitrarily decided by what power? I for one certainly do not want to give that power to anyone, especially in the case of rape. Why is it they cannot see their flawed view on this?
If Roe v. Wade is overturned what will be the punishment for not complying -- the death penalty for providers and prochoice women?
There will be no punishment for women who can go to other countries for the D&C procedure. For the poor, there will be increased births but fewer adoptions. Remember men will pay a price too. DNA is a great equalizer.
That has always been my question...who deems when a woman's life is in danger enough...does she have to have a 100% chance of dying in order to be granted an abortion, or is 50/50 ok? What about cases of rape or incest? Does the case have to be proven in court before the abortion is granted? What if a woman does not know her attacker? What if a woman does not report it (for whatever reason) and only finds out weeks later she is pregnant? What happens when there is no evidence of rape left? If abortions are restricted to only victims of rape or incest, are we going to have women crying rape when they have an unwanted pregnancy? I just do not understand how anyone plans to monitor all of this...and why is it that these so-called Christians are all about protecting the fetus, but turn around and want to eliminate every social program available to help these children once they are born? Why such outrage over the death of fetuses, but not over the 18,000 that die yearly from lack of health care??? Who is going to adopt all of these babies if these mothers are forced to give birth and they end up in the "system"?
What is it about self-described "pro-lifers" that have them fixating exclusively on the abortion issue?? Doesn't pro-life mean supporting policies against genocide in Sudan and Darfur, capital punishment; supporting children's rights, ending poverty, ending war, helping the homeless, being a "good steward" of our planet?? The hypocrisy of being "pro-lfe" on one issue is absolutely obsurd. Maybe if they framed their argument in the context of ALL life, it might have some merit.
Thank you.
Why is the mother's life more valuable? Another inconsistency.
Because the mother can always have another child.
The mother's life is more valuable if you regard living, breathing human beings with social ties and obligations and feelings and beliefs as more important than a cluster of cells which only has the potential of being human.
The mother's life is more valuable if you ascribe to religious beliefs that don't include unbaptized babies or fetuses going to hell or purgatory because of a very primitive view of G-d. If you believe that women are inherently sinful and are responsible for all lustful thoughts that men may have of them and thus deserve whatever punishment they get, including unwanted pregnancy, you believe that undifferentiated tissue is more important than a 13 year old girl who is the victim of rape or incest and can't carry to term safely because of her extreme youth.
The OT says that man (humanity) was made in G-d's image. It is also true that G-d has been made in man's (humanity"s) image. There are some people who persist in projecting their hateful, fearful, xenophobic views onto G-d because they are afraid to think for themselves. Not all faiths or denominations or pastors or priests or rabbis deny the role of reason in making religious choices. Only some do.
I say that a lot of the people on the right would pay for an abortion rf the father was a minority race or ethnic group student that was dating their daughter. Minorities don't count as human beings.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
