there is no "list" -- the truth of the matter is that it was a hypothetical discussion, which lead to the firing of the wasilla librarian, according to both public records and reported in the anchorage daily news, september 4, 2008. the librarian was reinstated the next day due to public outcry.
as to the rape kits, public records show that palin shifted the cost on budget documents from the police department to the victims. you can find these documents on the city of wasilla's web site http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136
these are public records. rather easy to find, too.
I will repeat myself because I have researched both rumors (I was curious).
The book banning question was a hypothetical, framed in a way more like "How would you handle a request to ban a book?" than "How can I get this specific book banned?". She was a new Mayor and wanted to know how that sort of thing is handled. She never, not once, made any suggestion that she intended to ban a single book. There is absolutely no record of any attempt to ban anything. The story was fluff and nothing more than a short blurb piece. There is no record whatsoever that Palin attempted to or intended to ban a single book ever.
So that charge is still a politically motivated hit as far as I am concerned. If someone could produce a single example that documented such a request, I'd be very interested to hear it. I love the first amendment too.
As for the rape kits, the story linking Palin to rape kits doesn't even include a reference to her statement on the issue. She wasn't interviewed and it is a non-issue. To date, not a single citizen ever paid for a rape kit under Palin. The city wanted insurance companies to pay the cost of forensic health investigations, which is commonplace all over America.
Here's some documentation to ease your minds:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/sep/22/palin-rape-kit-controversy/
"The policy sought to have rape victims’ health insurance companies reimburse the city for the $500 to $1,200 cost of a forensic exam that is conducted after a sexual assault. Presumably, some of the cost might have been passed along to the victim through requirements for deductibles or co-payments, although victim advocates say they don’t know of anyone in the small town who had to pay such a fee.
The policy generated little if any controversy during the first four years after Palin became mayor in 1996. Anne Kilkenny, a civic activist in Wasilla who has written a widely circulated e-mail criticizing Palin, told PolitiFact she does not recall that the issue ever came up.
The policy came to light briefly in 2000 when the Alaska Legislature passed a law that required state and local law enforcement agencies pay the full cost of the exams.
“We would never bill the victim of a burglary for fingerprinting and photographing the crime scene, or for the cost of gathering other evidence,” then-Gov. Tony Knowles said when he signed the bill into law. “Nor should we bill rape victims just because the crime scene happens to be their bodies.”
Legislators and activists have said the law was prompted by Wasilla and several other communities with a similar policy.
But a search of the committee minutes for the bill found no mention of Wasilla or Palin. Nor could we find any indication that city officials spoke up about the bill until after it was passed, when Police Chief Charlie Fannon was quoted in the local newspaper The Frontiersman saying he opposed it.
“In the past we’ve charged the cost of exams to the victims’ insurance company when possible,” he told the newspaper. “I just don’t want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer.” He estimated the new law would cost his department $5,000 to $14,000 per year.
His comments suggest the city sought the money more from insurance companies than the victims themselves. The paper quoted him as saying that "ultimately, it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs.”"
To date, not one single victim has come out publicly to state that they were charged for a rape kit. Not one, and doing so would be disastrous to the ticket (and easy to do anonymously - journalists could keep such a persons identity confidential if they could find such a person).
The 'controversy' isn't worth a thing in light of the fact that there is no evidence that any rape victims have ever been charged.
It's a hit piece, plain and simple, and is without merit.