No. It's Not OK.

I once heard a statistic that 1 in 4 college aged women is raped. I believe that to be true.

Imagine that you are a college aged woman. You have just been violated in the most disgusting, humiliating manner possible. You are ashamed. And you are scared.

In order to pursue a criminal investigation, you have to submit voluntarily to being violated again. If you are college age, more than likely you have either never had a gyno exam or you have had a single practitioner examine you. Now you are going to trust your body to some medical examiner. Samples are going to be removed from your body. You are going to answer questions about your sexual history - probably more than once. You are probably going to end up humiliated and scared all over again.

It's no wonder that so many sexual assaults go unreported.

Now imagine yourself in the same position again. This time, imagine knowing that you are going to be charged a fee of $300 to $1,200 for the cost of the "rape kit" and examination. As a woman of that age, if you have a job, you are probably not making much more than minimum wage. If you have graduated, you probably have student loans. If you didn't go to college and have been working for 3 years, you might have a rent payment. Are you still going to pursue a criminal case? Or is the emotional and financial toll just too great?

In 2000, Alaska lawmakers learned that rural police agencies had been billing rape victims or their insurance companies $500 to $1,200 for the costs of the forensic medical examinations used to gather evidence. They quickly passed a law
prohibiting the practice.

According to the sponsor, Democrat Eric Croft, the law was aimed in part at Wasilla, where now-Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor. When it was signed, Wasilla's police chief expressed displeasure. (USA Today)

No, there's no quote out there from Sarah Palin. Right now, no one seems to know when Wasilla started charging. It's possible she didn't know that her town was charging rape victims for evidence gathering. But really, how much could have been going on in that town? And besides, the Police Chief that "expressed displeasure" was appointed by her. It's pretty unlikely the issue was never discussed between the two.

I'm wondering if the reporters at USA Today were kind when they said "rural police agencies." According to the then-governor (yes - Democrat; yes - incumbent defeated by Palin), Wasilla was the only town charging victims.

In the best possible scenario, Sarah Palin's ignorance in this matter was negligent to the needs of some of her constituents. At the worst, she made a conscious decision to penalize the victims of crime.

How could any mother, daughter, father or brother turn a blind eye to this? How could anyone who has ever filed a police report as the victim of any crime, from assault to theft, who hasn't had to PAY to get justice for someone else's crime ignore this? How could any woman who calls herself a feminist, and is willing to put aside all of her other beliefs just to vote for a presidential ticket that includes a woman, say this is inconsequential? (That last group, by the way, is confusing feminism with sexism. But that's an issue for someone else to tackle.)

Please, does anyone out there have an answer? I'm having trouble understanding why the rest of the country isn't as shocked about this as I am. And unlike teen pregnancy, crazy pastors, POW status, or any other "personal" crap that has been brought up in this election cycle, I believe this IS an issue. I believe this DOES reflect on Palin's leadership philosophy, and possibly her stance on violent crime. And I, for one, do not want this woman one heartbeat away from leading my country.