I think the idea is solid - that Palin objected to having the town incur the costs for processing the rape kits because they include emergency contraception., a practice that runs counter to her wingnut fundie worldview.

I think it's an abhorent and completely unacceptable position for an elected official, but I also think that it also helps explain her objections.

I also think that the fact that the kits are used to test for STD's helps explain her objections - the town would likely be on the hook for subsequent treatment and testing.

For those women who somehow view Palin's new political celebrity as a good thing, I suggest that they take a hard look at her views and actions on issues that directly affect women's lives.

Like this issue right here.

I'm just wondering how much of their budget this would take up - I mean, would thousands upon thousands of women have to be raped in one tiny town several times in order for this cost to really mess up their town?

and I can hardly understand anyone who would be so cruel as to not provide a woman with an emergency pill to stop a pregnancy from rape. How heartless can you be?

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

 The rape rate in Alaska is 2.5 times the national average.

Fannon, however, decided that the victim's insurance company should be billed for the rape kit, as the taxpayer's of Wasilla already shouldered too much tax burden. This would save the town somewhere between $5,000 and $14,000 per year.

 one that prompted the legislators to actually pass a law so that women would not have to be victimized a second time by paying $300 to $1,200 for the rape exam kit. (This was after the police department refused to stop charging, citing economics

Not sure I understand the disparity in the cost of the rape exam kit, but $5,000 to $1400 per year????? when rape kits average $750.  No matter how you do the math, these numbers (given the small population of Wassilla) are incredibly disturbing.  And a state with rape incidents 2.2 (or 2.5 according to at least one post here), higher than the nation's average?  Do we want the woman who governs over such a "maverik" state to be second in command of our entire nation?  It seems clear to me she is a woman with just enough knowlege to be harmful and not enough to be a true leader.

Remember, life is a journey, not a destination. Here's to Living Well! www.themadgoddess.blogspot.com & www.lwbms.blogspot.com

When my house was burglarized a couple years ago, I don't recall getting a bill for the officer taking a report and doing a bit of investigating.  When my sister had a guy  break in (and she fought off), the police didn't give her a bill for dusting for fingerprints.  They even took the guy to court and sent him away for a while.

I guess I'm one of those idealists who believe that we need to look out for each other if we want to live in community with each other. 

If it's true that Palin's fundamentalist views affected her judgment on this issue, then God help us all.  Let us keep state and religion separate.  Please.

And I don't think I'll be visiting her hometown any time soon.

What I can say first is that This, it turns out, is policy in a number of states, including Missouri and North Carolina. Looking up more information as I can find it.
I really guess it depends on what you read/ and believe..from the articles I am reading its seems to be mixed both ways..which is how I thought it would be we only have about 40+days until voting. I found an article on CNN which goes on a lot like what you were saying, except there is something that caught my attention:
""The bigger picture of what was going on at the time was that the state was trying to cut their own budget, and one of the things that they were doing was passing on costs to cities, and that was one of the many things that they were passing on, the cost to the city," said Patrick, who recalls enormous pressure to keep the city's budget down.

But the state was never responsible for paying the costs of local investigations. Patrick was also a member of Wasilla City Council, and she doesn't recall the issue coming before council members, nor does she remember discussing the issue with Palin.

She does recall Palin going through the budget in detail. She said Palin would review each department's budget line by line and send it back to department heads with her changes.

"Sarah is a fiscal conservative, and so she had seen that the city was heading in a direction of bigger projects, costing taxpayers more money, and she was determined to change that," Patrick said.

Before Palin came to City Hall, the Wasilla Police Department paid for rape kits out of a fund for miscellaneous costs, according to the police chief who preceded Fannon and was fired by Palin. That budget line was cut by more than half during Palin's tenure, but it did not specifically mention rape exams."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/index.html#cnnST...

Are we blaming Palin for Fallon's change in policy?  Or are we blaming her for making an error in judgment when trying to be fiscally responsible by saving taxpayers some money?

While Palin was mayor, the city approved 15 million dollars for a 2,500 seat multi-use indoor arena.  This for a city with an annual budget of 3.9 million.  A half-cent sales tax went into effect to pay for the arena and the citizens continue to pay for it.
I guess it's just a question of priorities.

What about taking the oil royalties that Palin is so proud of, $1654 per person, and use that to pay for rape kits?  Hmm, using the state's resources to improve the public good....who'd a thunk it?

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people"

- Eleanor Roosevelt

You seem to be assuming that only women can be raped.

Accusations of Gov. Sarah Palin charged victims rape kits proven false.

You know, I'm weird this way.  I think contraception is okay as long as it isn't an abortifacient. I don't use IUDs because if implantation occurs, you will lose that child, period, there's no way around it.  That's my personal view.  So, I PERSONALLY would not take EC if offered.  

BUT...here comes the but...THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU DON'T USE THE KITS!!!!  Nobody should be given the emergency contraception without understanding what it is, but just because it's included doesn't mean you have to take it.  Sheesh. Allow people a chance to make their own moral decisions, ok?  Yes, I bet this is probably why Palin tried to keep them away. 

And yes, I have been sexually assaulted twice in my life, once at age 14 and once at age 19, one was a casual friend and one was your stereotypical stranger attack because I was in a dark parking lot by myself, shame on me, I knew better but I had just left a group of friends and figured it was a short walk over there.  The second time luckily I had the sense to scream and do my best to attract attention although when I filed a police report nothing ever came of it because they figured I got away so there was no problem. What if that guy grabbed someone else in the parking lot?  What if he successfully raped someone later that night?  That is ridiculous, but that's what happens.

What if some of these rapists could have been caught but weren't because someone couldn't afford to pay to collect evidence?  That is absolutely reprehensible no matter where you stand on the emergency contraception issue.  Yeah, walk in to a home where someone's been shot and say "Ok, first we need a check for $800 to cover all the collection of evidence and lab tests."  You just don't do that.