No, actually, Rachel is writing about how this is an unfair smear rumor by claiming that:

1) The fact that the town was billing insurance companies instead of victims shows the rumor isn't true;

2) Other states have done it

3) Palin didn't institute the practice.

With regard to 1, the point has no merit at all; and Rachel refuses to acknowledge that. She continues to insist that the fact that it's the insurance being billed means the rumor is false. Wrong. The insurance is the victim's insurance, there's no logical difference, and in fact the NY Times accurately reported that they were billing insurance. So yes, I am flabbergasted that she would continue to ignore that the "rumor" is not, in fact, false simply because there are insurance companies involved.

WIth regard to point 2, so what? Since when does the fact that somebody else does it mean that we should get to ask questions about the people who do? This was a policy of Sarah Palin's administration, it's a terrible policy, and the fact that other people do it too doesn't mean that it's somehow unfair to question why Palin's did.

And finally, with regard to point 3, it's unclear whether she knew or not, but what is undisputed even by Rachel is that Palin signed the budgets that eliminated the line item for the kits. Either she should have known and didn't, or she didn't know, and each are equally troubling.

My beef in part is with Rachel insisting that this is an unfair issue to raise. There are many serious questions about this policy, and there is nothing unfair about asking them.