Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« This Week on Drugs | Oly Outrage Pt. 2 »

Friday, February 22, 2008

Victimized Twice

posted by on February 22 at 13:19 PM

Coming forward with rape charges is hard enough—after the initial call to police, it usually involves a trip to the hospital, where the victim undergoes an extensive examination. The exam is generally done with forensic medical exam kit, more commonly known as a “rape kit,” which includes bags for clothing, test tubes for blood, swabs for fluid, a comb for pubic hair, and tests for pregnancy, HIV, gonorrhea, and syphilis.

Today, US News and World Report (via) gives another reason rape victims might avoid stepping forward: In many cases, hospitals charge victims for their rape kits, which can cost well over $1,000. In North Carolina, for example,

the vast majority of the 3,000 or so emergency room patients examined for sexual assaults each year shoulder some of the cost of a rape kit test.” A state victims compensation fund intended to help cover the bills is woefully underfunded and had capped payouts for the $1,600 test at $1,000. Since Locke’s story ran, “The cap has been lifted,” says North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety spokesperson Patty McQuillan, though she noted that the legislature would still have to provide the additional funds.

Outrageous.

RSS icon Comments

1

i thought a rape kit was something entirely different.

Posted by bing | February 22, 2008 1:21 PM
2

That's insane. There's no other circumstance in which a victim would have to pay to get forensic evidence against their attacker.

Posted by Gitai | February 22, 2008 1:25 PM
3

would either Obama's or Hillary's heath care plan fix this kind of problem?

Posted by Brandon Dismuke | February 22, 2008 1:29 PM
4

My house was burglarized and the police tromped all over the floors and got staining fingerprinting powder all over everything and who had to pay for the cleanup? Me. Being a victim of a crime sucks, and rape is way worse than burglary, but you can't make nurses work for free to do rape kits just like you can't force maids to work for free to scrub up fingerprinting powder.

Posted by mason | February 22, 2008 1:37 PM
5

i might be wrong, but i think its a bit different here in king county. though the system here is not perfect, i believe victims don't have to pay for anything here and the king county sexual assault resource center provides advocacy for the victims and i beleive the police calls the advocates to come to the hospital,courts, etc..

the south is still backwards when it comes to this.

Posted by SeMe | February 22, 2008 1:44 PM
6

Mason, I kind of hope you get raped.

Posted by Abby | February 22, 2008 1:58 PM
7

That's entirely appalling.

Posted by Vasya | February 22, 2008 2:09 PM
8

@6: Uh, that's horrible.

Posted by Robin Sparkles | February 22, 2008 2:21 PM
9

This is totally crazy. I hope it's not the same here in King County.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 22, 2008 2:22 PM
10

Um, but mason, did you have to pay for the cost of the policeman's time, the lab that analyzed the fingerprints, etc? No. That one reason we all pay taxes.

Posted by exelizabeth | February 22, 2008 2:24 PM
11

"Outrageous"? Indeed!

Your reporting, I mean, ECB: Outrageous!!!

What is truly outraging is that the very next line in the article you quote -- the VERY NEXT ONE -- reads:

"Chalk one up for the power of the press to shine a bright light into dark corners and encourage change. But the News & Observer story made me wonder—just how big and dark is this particular corner? Is this a national phenomenon or is the practice limited to one state?"

So, ECB, how does Washington State come out vis-a-vi this practice?

In your role as a reporter did you make a few phone calls and determine how this effects your readers and where you, as an empowered female reporter, can best "shine a bright light"?

Or did you just get outraged and stop working there?

Posted by Timrrr | February 22, 2008 2:25 PM
12

@8: Welcome to the Internet!

Posted by Abby | February 22, 2008 2:29 PM
13

@11 is OUTRAGED!!!111!!1! that Erica posted this story. For some reason. That I can't quite figure out. I mean, I would think it would be news that in North Carolina, women have to pay for their rape kits (regardless of whether they have to in Seattle).

Posted by Julie | February 22, 2008 2:39 PM
14

@13: The point is that a fresh-out-of-school journalist knows this is crying out for the local angle. My first question was: I wonder what the policy is here in Seattle/King County?

So like @11 I was disappointed in Erica's failure to do Reporting 101.

Posted by tomcat98109 | February 22, 2008 2:49 PM
15

@13:

But, Julie, that's the point -- as Erica reported above:

Since Locke’s story ran, “The cap has been lifted,” says North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety spokesperson Patty McQuillan,

Read the artivcle again: In North Carolina they NO LONGER have to pay for their rape kits.

And why is that? Because a sharp, on the ball reporter did her job, uncovered the facts, and brought them to light.

I'm just urging ECB to do the same -- to effect change rather than just be outraged.

Posted by Timrrr | February 22, 2008 2:54 PM
16

@13:

But, Julie, that's the point -- as Erica reported above:

Since Locke’s story ran, “The cap has been lifted,” says North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety spokesperson Patty McQuillan,

Read the artivcle again: In North Carolina they NO LONGER have to pay for their rape kits.

And why is that? Because a sharp, on the ball reporter did her job, uncovered the facts, and brought them to light.

I'm just urging ECB to do the same -- to effect change rather than just be outraged.

Posted by Timrrr | February 22, 2008 2:57 PM
17

Apologies for the double-post.

Posted by Timrrr | February 22, 2008 3:00 PM
18

@4 Look on the bright side. At least they checked for fingerprints. Most property crimes in Seattle get no investigation at all.

But the state could easily cover the cost, just like they cover the cost of checking for DNA, accessing FBI databases, and the like.

Posted by Gitai | February 22, 2008 3:10 PM
19

Okay... valid concern if this were something she published in the paper. But this is fucking slog. Posting a new article (or many... do you read The Morning News posts?) simply because it's interesting, is nothing new. Not every post requires extensive investigative journalism.

Posted by Julie | February 22, 2008 3:13 PM
20

@19:

True enough, Julie, this is just a slog. Extensive investigative journalism is not required for all postings.

But after reading her post, even you were left with the (clearly mistaken!) impression that "North Carolina, women have to pay for their rape kits". And that is simply not what the article Erica "summarized" says. Quite the opposite, actually.

Facts matter. And anyone needs to be called out if they misreport them. (Especially reporters!)

Posted by Timrrr | February 22, 2008 3:45 PM
21

I don't know what happened!!

When did Erica STOP posting about how great Hillary's vagina was?

Oh and a note for the gals: Don't dress like sluts and you probably won't get raped. If you lead a guy on, you can't be surprised when he follows through.

Posted by ecce homo | February 22, 2008 3:51 PM
22

What really sucks about this is having to cough up a grand to make me and my girl's rape role play as realistic as possible.

Posted by Jason Josephes | February 22, 2008 3:58 PM
23

hey 22 i just found on ebay for 59.99.

Posted by some dude | February 22, 2008 4:07 PM
24

text got a little mangled in the link there. should read "i just found 13 never-used rape kits on ebay for 59.99"

Posted by some dude | February 22, 2008 4:08 PM
25

Awesome!

Posted by Jason Josephes | February 22, 2008 4:22 PM
26

@20... I was not left with that impression, actually, just careless with my words. The last sentence of Erica's summary clearly states that the $1,000 cap has been lifted.

Posted by Julie | February 22, 2008 4:22 PM
27

@21

*yawn* 'mo, you'll have to do better than that.

Posted by scary tyler moore | February 22, 2008 4:53 PM
28

I don't get what the problem is. they make out of bounds skiers pay for their own rescue. why should society as a whole have to pay for girls who drink too much and have poor judgment in the men they associate with?

Posted by doink | February 22, 2008 4:58 PM
29

@28,

Or how about this? We track down the rapist and force him to pay for it. Why should society as a whole have to pay for men who drink too much and poor enough judgement to choose to rape?

Posted by keshmeshi | February 22, 2008 5:02 PM
30

I fail to see how rapists are using poor judgment. they are scumbags operating as one would expect.

Responsibility still lies with person who chose to engage in risky behavior.

Posted by doink | February 22, 2008 5:09 PM
31

@30,

No. Responsibility lies with the criminal.

I know you guys love to think that rapists are easily identifiable, but most rapists are, by all appearances, completely normal, like my relative's first husband who raped my cousin or my half-sister's stepfather who raped her.

So, I'll let you choose: either you can suffer from blue balls as all women everywhere refuse to have anything to do with men out of the fear of getting raped by some of you, or you can have some fucking sympathy and not blame the victim.

Posted by keshmeshi | February 22, 2008 5:17 PM
32

rapist dudes must be more obvious to other guys than they are to women.

there is a difference between "blaming the victim" and suggesting that someone should be held accountable for their decisions.

Posted by doink | February 22, 2008 5:25 PM
33

@32,

Who are these "rapist dudes"?

Yes, the rapist should be held accountable for his actions. Men who rape make up a significant minority of men overall, which means that you know rapists, I know rapists, everyone knows rapists. Do you know anyone who has fessed up to you that he once raped someone? I'm guessing not. Do you know that rape is one of the most under reported crimes?

I've been on so many dates where men tried to guilt trip me for not trusting them. I guess if the guilt trip worked and I let them into my apartment and one of them raped me, I would be at fault, right?

Here's the reality: in dating, you have to take risks. Drinking is a normal social activity. Letting people you don't know that well is a normal dating activity. Some men choose to take advantage of these normal activities to rape and rely on people like you to blame women when they're only doing what is required to function in normal society.

So, I ask again, are you that determined to have blue balls?

And, by the way, how does this responsibility work for women who are raped by strangers on the street? Do we bear responsibility simply for possessing vaginas?

Posted by keshmeshi | February 22, 2008 5:32 PM
34

why would you ever enter someone's home after drinking unless you intend to have sex? that's just stupid.

Posted by doink | February 22, 2008 5:37 PM
35

@34,

I see. All women are required to fuck you after going into your home no matter what. If a woman walks into your home and discovers that you have a collection of severed doll's heads on your mantle, she is not allowed to change her mind and walk out. You need to learn a little something about consent: No means no, asshole.

Posted by keshmeshi | February 22, 2008 5:44 PM
36

if you want to be dense, that's your prerogative. you can misread my statements so you can fall back on blah blah feminist rape boilerplate unthinking spew.

Posted by doink | February 22, 2008 7:57 PM
37

This is exactly why I didn't go to the hospital after I was raped. I actually called first because I had no idea what I was supposed to do. And I was told I'd have to pay for any tests they did. At the time, I had no insurance, so the ER costs just didn't warrant trying to find some guy they'd probably never catch.

What was worse was after going through that ordeal, I ended up having an impossible time trying to get the Morning-after pill. Because by the time I'd figured out what I was going to do, planned parenthood's pill distribution cutoff time had already passed. I didn't realize they don't give it out past 2pm. Interesting.

Posted by fs | February 22, 2008 8:07 PM
38

@36,

You are absolutely right. It is feminist rape spew.

I, like most women, have this crazy idea that I'm human. Most women go about their lives not realizing that there are a number of men, like you, who disagree.

These women go about their lives always at risk that some man might decide to rape them. There is no reliable way to tell the difference between a rapist and nonrapist, unlike what you want to believe.

Therefore, women always have some risk that a relative, a clergy member, a teacher, an employer, a coworker, a "friend", a date, a boyfriend, a husband, or a complete stranger might rape them.

The only way for a woman to be completely safe from rape is to never associate with any man ever, to live in a home as heavily fortified as Fort Knox, and to never leave that home under any circumstance.

According to your definition, any woman who fails to live up to this standard bears some responsibility for her rape. This is shorthand for blaming women for living while female. It's rape apology and unabashed misogyny.

You are recycling blah blah misogynist rape apology boilerplate unthinking spew. You probably have the intelligence of a 12-year-old boy. You may be a potential or actual rapist. You are definitely a rape apologist.

Rape apologists bear more of the responsibility of rape than any woman who lets a man up to her apartment and is summarily raped. She likely did not have the life experience to know never to trust any man, lest she be complicit in her own rape. She was likely manipulated into going against her own judgement. By the way, most rapists deliberately seek out victims who have little self-confidence -- that much the better to manipulate them, guilt trip them, and ensure that those victims never come forward or press charges. And you would blame those women for being the victims of men who are professional predators.

You help rapists by enabling them. Do you think as many men would choose to rape if they didn't think you'd have their back? I suppose it's possible, but I doubt it. Rape doesn't fly in societies that don't see women as subhuman. Think there's a connection?

You also help rapists by shaming women into thinking that rape is always their fault, when in fact rape is only women's fault as far as women refuse to be cowed and to give up human contact and human existence to avoid it.

You are a stupid, misogynistic scumbag. May no woman ever trust you enough to ever speak to you, let alone fuck you. Enjoy your blue balls.

Fuck you very much.

Posted by keshmeshi | February 22, 2008 8:59 PM
39

Thank you Keshmeshi. I couldn't have said it better.

Posted by LK | February 22, 2008 10:02 PM
40

That has to be a troll. There aren't still people who think like that for real. It's 2008, not 1968.

Posted by Kiru Banzai | February 23, 2008 9:03 AM
41

I've known _women_ who think like that for real, in 2008. Then again, I'm trapped in Red State land, American taliban territory.

Are there countries where women aren't viewed as subuhman, that don't have a rape problem? (insert joke about the fictional version of Kazakhstan here) I can't imagine there's a nice, modern, first-world country where this is not a serious, underreported/undiscussed issue.

Posted by CP | February 25, 2008 8:33 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).