For all those who literally conclude that Palin is an advocate for rape victims:
If I may, I would like to give you an analogy.
Just objectively speaking:
A woman gets raped and she is charged for the rape kit. She never asked for this to happen, it is definitely without question horrible and ghastly.
A man gets assaulted with a gun, gets pistol whipped on his way to the store, and then he his shot. He whether through insurance or that is also billed.
Although each is a crime, both are deplorable. Both can be extremely physically horrible to go through, both can leave emotional scares, both can leave a person very violated, only in different manners.
What is the difference, and why is my argument of explaining how State governments, many in the US, just cannot handle the tax burden of quite frankly either analogy that hard to understand?
And, if women wish to be treated equally, why, in this manner, would any reason be a good one for this man is this case to suffer this distress in this situation any differently then a woman?
