Thursday, January 24, 2008


Heath Ledger was a young, talented man and father of a young daughter. By all accounts, his death was a tragic accident.

We all knew there would be mass media frenzy. I had hoped there would be some dignity allotted for his family survivors including well-known actress, Michelle Williams, who is mother to their daughter, Matilda. I was prepared for the frenzy of news coverage and prying attempts at the family. But how silly I was to think THAT would be the worst of it all.

Now bat-shit-crazy, psycho Westboro Baptist "Church" says they'll protest Ledger's funeral. Uh Why? Cause Ledger played a gay man in Brokeback Mountain and that means he mocks God and now burns in hell. Ahhh, of course. I don't know why I should expect more from a group that terrorizes families of a fallen U.S. soldiers.

Second-- and more shocking (I mean you know you'll get nuttiness from WBC) is the reaction from Fox News radio/TV host, John Gibson, who mocked Ledger's death in his radio show. Gibson played clips from Brokeback Mountain, laughing to himself, "I guess he knows how to quit you." And playing another short clip where Ledger says "We're dead. "

I guess at Fox news, playing a gay man equals being gay? Either way it means your death is ripe for parody.

Do people have no shame? If you would like to contact Fox News, info can be found here.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Blogging for Choice!

Today is the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and I am blogging for choice. More specifically, WHY would you be pro-choice?

To see the merits of being pro-choice, one only need look at a typical "pro-life" argument.

Unfortunately, I saw a classic example this morning when I opened my community newspaper. The article was by Cal Thomas and it was called, "Awful Cost of Roe Decision."

Reading this article will tell you all you need to about "pro-life" individuals.

Roe took the question of endowment of life by "our Creator" and placed it in the hands of individuals...Each becomes her and his own god; each becomes a taker of life, rather than a giver, inverting the creation model into one of destruction and transforming the pregnant woman from life-giver to life-taker.

Well yikes.

First of all, take notice because this is really the first and LAST time Thomas feigns any interest in talking about women. As many "pro-lifers" do, he'll ignore them in this argument... notice he reference them as "pregnant," or "life giver." He never talks about a woman as a human being or an individual -- you'd think in this little universe, women didn't EXIST until they were impregnated.

Secondly, HUGE, LOUD ALARM bells should go off when people tell you what God wants (as if they have the inside scoop). Notice that this man's God seems to have very little interest in women's rights-- convenient, yes?

I thought God gave us free will? Do we call it "playing God" when we go to war and kill the enemy? No, we call it a necessary choice made for the good of all. And we trust our leaders to make those tough decisions because "they know best" (ugh, 'nother can of worms). But heaven forbid we trust a woman to make a decision about ONE potential life that frankly, can't become a life without her anyway.

Think about it!!

If I was dying of kidney failure, and Cal Thomas was my perfect donor match, would he be required by law to donate a kidney to preserve my life? No, absolutely not. No one would expect him to give of his body to sustain me. That is infringement on his legal rights. When it's his kidney, it's none of my business, but when it's my uterus, suddenly he has a say!?

Thomas goes on to say (emphasis mine):

Abortion on demand cannot be seen in isolation from social breakdown. In 1973, near the end of the Vietnam War and the approaching resignation of President Nixon two years later, the focus on self, pleasure and convenience by Baby Boomers was at its height. Marriages easily dissolved as "no fault" divorce laws were passed; cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births were on the rise; "unwanted babies" (who were labeled "products of conception" to make it easier to deny the obvious) became an impediment to the pursuit of pleasure and material gain.

Abortion was not a cause, but a reflection of our decadence and deviancy.

Damn. That blames a lot of stuff on abortion, doesn't it? But sad to say, blaming the women-folk/feminism/abortion is nothing new. In fact, if you look up Thomas' article online (you can find it at -'nough said) the unedited version blames abortion for our current immigration problem. Thomas claims we'd have more workers if we just quit aborting them! In fact, Washington pro-war mouthpieces have decried abortion as the reason we're losing in Iraq!! I think the argument went something like this: "Quit aborting our canon fodder, you hussies!"

But let's be honest. You can't really blame abortion for everything. Abortion wasn't legalized until '73 and a lot of bad shit went down before then... World Wars, terrible depression etc etc. Who do we blame for that? And go back even further, I mean holy crap look at the dark ages! Or early history of this country with constant instability, terrible disease, we even burned our own at the stake-- don't recall Planned Parenthood being on every corner back then, do you?

I CAN buy that legal abortion may have caused some divorces. Women's right (among them the right to choose abortion) meant that women began realizing they didn't have to stay unhappily married, they didn't have to birth children and settle down... they could make their life their own, go to school, pursue a career, take a mate, have sex without fear and without marriage! Ah yes, the end of civilization as we know it....

Thomas' idea of "civilization" is that HE gets to tell YOU when to have sex and for what purpose. "You will be married and you will be trying for babies!"

Being pro-choice is pro-family. I can bet you just as many marriages were saved by Roe as were "destroyed." With Roe and ever-expanding birth control access, families could control number and spacing of children which meant dad didn't have to work himself to death providing for a herd and mom had options rather than pregnancy after exhausting pregnancy.

"Pro-lifers" like to talk about abortion on demand or "abortion used as birth control." I'd like to know WHERE! I've worked at an abortion clinic and I can tell you there are ZERO women who see this as a "birth control" method. Birth control (ideally) is fast, easy, cheap & painless. Abortion, frankly is none of these. It's invasive, expensive, hard to schedule --the VAST majority of women drive at LEAST 1 hour to reach a doctor! There's also the complex decision to end a pregnancy... not to mention the social stigma on women who choose to abort.

People like Thomas want to pretend that women are silly little children who need protecting from their small, underdeveloped minds. You see, in Thomas' world, women are PREY for the bad, scary abortion providers.

Politicians and judges could help bury Roe by requiring that pregnant women receive complete information about the nature of the life within them, including being required to view sonograms before electing abortion.

This notion of women as completely oblivious to what's inside their own uterus-- it's just insulting, frankly. When I worked at the women's clinic, plenty of women looked at that sonogram, some even asked for a picture to take home. You see, it's not that women don't understand the depth of this decision. They do, they just don't feel the need to share it with their politician. You see, they have this crazy notion that they don't have to discuss it with you, Mr. Thomas-- they want it between their doctor and maybe THEIR God.

This whole issue is very complex and the answer does NOT lie in restricting access. That just means women will die.

The answer to fewer abortions is in making birth control better, more available and most importantly -- cheaper! It means teaching sex ed that doesn't lie or deceive or tell you "just don't do it."

Pro-choice is about human rights.

It's about giving power to women

Pro-choice is respecting women and their right to bodily autonomy.

Pro-choice is every child a planned, wanted child.

It's not hate and control...


Happy 35th!

Monday, January 21, 2008

Whoa Whoopi

This makes no sense.

Whoopi says (rather snarkily), "Women got the vote before we did." And she points at herself on "we." What does that even mean? Does we mean "black" or did she mean, "we" as female....

Cause... for once, I think Elizabeth Hassleback might be right (AHHH, Armageddon is coming!)

The 15th Amendment to the Constitution (passed in 1870) gave black MEN the right to vote.

The 19 Amendment (passed in 1920), gave women (of all races) the right to vote!!!

So what in the hell is Whoopi talking about?

Perhaps it's because historically we know that African Americans had a hell of a time voting due to various unjust laws (Jim Crow Laws) that were passed to keep them from the polling booth.

Fact still remains that, in the eyes of the Constitution, black men had rights sooner than women-- 50 YEARS SOONER!!

Random... random...random.

Why didn't anyone press Whoopi on this? Is Barbara Walters asleep?

Friday, January 18, 2008

Torture of women = erections?

Today I logged onto and per usual, browsed the top of the homepage for the "watched right now" videos.

I saw one called "Girl tied up" and the freeze frame looked like an abduction scene. I thought to myself-- this can't possibly be good. Like an idiot, I clicked on it to see what it was about.

The video (warning: graphic, may trigger) seems to be actors doing a 2 minute part of an ongoing series. I can't for the life of me discern a plot from this, nor do I have any interest in going further. Frankly, this one video was enough to turn-me off to whatever the storyline was.

The video starts with the camera on the painted toenails of a young woman and it pans up her body to reveal a low-cut top. She is scared and struggling on a hospital bed where she's held in restraints. The camera pays special attention to the woman's cleavage.

A man enters the room and the girl begs frantically while he injects her with something that appears to knock her unconscious. The rest I didn't understand because it has something to do with this ongoing plot line--- either way, the more troubling part was below the video... in the comment section.

Platikum (30 seconds ago): wow I just get an erection..

minimage4life (2 minutes ago): Titties yay !!!

bloodfestbogota (3 minutes ago): yeah...I say the same....nice tits baby...thats it

arroncoh1 (11 minutes ago):OMFG that's hot.

CopyriteInfringement (55 minutes ago): he should of raped her, id watch that.

temporaryonesix (52 minutes ago):
I second that.

misterfisherman (1 hour ago): Make the most of it.when a butch feminist comes into power...then its gone

This is awful on its own. But when we take into account all the many pornography films that feature graphic violence against women-- as well as mainstream hollywood movies that sexualize violence against women-- CONSTANTLY-- is it so hard to believe that men are turned on by this and don't think twice?
I need a cold shower.
Damn it all, I just wanted to look up funny bloopers to pass the time at work.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

I need blood pressure medication

Sometimes, I would do better not to click on the links at feministe, they DID warn me that it would raise my blood pressure...

Author Angela Epstein, of the Daily Mail writes an article called, "I'm a FEMALE male chauvinist - and proud of it."

Okay, can I just stop right here and discuss something.... Would there ever be an article with the title, "A Black racist and proud of it?"

SERIOUSLY??? Unless it was on the Onion? I just don't understand acceptance of sexism-- least of all when the acceptance comes from a woman? Anyway...

Epstein writes the most absurd and insulting drivel I've read in awhile. And I've read some drivel recently. The article opens with Epstein lamenting because she's on an airplane and the Captain is speaking over the PA and *gasp* -- The Captain is a woman! HOLY CRAP!! GRAB YOUR SEAT CUSHION-- WE'RE GOING DOWN!

With a female pilot at the helm, my husband immediately made some comment about women drivers before returning to his crossword.

I, on the other hand, felt uncomfortable and found it hard to relax for the rest of the flight. All I could think about was this young woman - well, she sounded young - cradling 200 lives in the palm of her hand.


Though I applaud female ambition and advancement, when it comes to real power, I feel so much happier if a man holds the reins.
If men should be the only ones in positions of "real power," just where does that leave us exactly? I'm assuming we're out of courtrooms, hospitals and piloting planes... but what about media? Isn't it really powerful to write and have an impact on the public? Maybe you should hang up your hat and call it a day, Epstein? Just a thought.

PS: Also. Iv'e noticed that you're alive and writing this article (not dead from pilot-error), maybe you should stop and give that a thought as well.

At least she acknowledges that she's sexist. Although she fails to see the seriousness. Her husband's comment on 'women drivers' is written off as "macho good humor." No, no, honey, macho good humor is the guys on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy who can handle some jokes at the expense of their "masculinity" without freaking out. There is nothing "good humored" about putting women down simply because they're women.

So am I being treacherously disloyal to my own sex? Well, before the braburners start hurling the embers of their lingerie at me, you need only to take a long look at the world at large to realise my latent male chauvinism isn't operating in isolation.

Okay, now I just feel sorry for her, how many writers have tackled the bra-burning myth and she's still afraid of blazing lingerie? But she has a point, there's plenty of other sexist dolts who'll back up her opinions of "women shouldn't have real power." Only difference, most of the people saying such things ARE MEN. Because *duh* they have something to gain by perpetuating that myth.

Predictably for any sexist, Epstein goes after Hillary Clinton next:

She may have squeaked home in New Hampshire this week, but she had been humiliated in Iowa.

Wow, not even true. While Obama definitely took the primary in Iowa, Clinton trailed Edwards by only one percentage point. Proving her worth, she beat them a few days later in New Hampshire-- I wouldn't call that humiliating.

Could it be that Mrs Clinton's mannish trouser suits and selfaggrandising, policy-driven speeches smack of the masculine touch - and what heterosexual woman wants fake machismo in power?

You're right, who in their right mind would want fake machismo in power? .....

Fake machismo (above)

Epstein goes on to say that Clinton was "betrayed by her own biology when she was reduced to tears this week on the stump."

Also a huge lie. Clinton's voice briefly cracked. She wasn't "reduced to tears" -- her voice broke when she spoke of her great love for this country. Doesn't sound particularly weak to me.

Like many women, she understandably gave into the hormonal urge to blub when faced with a setback. But with this acknowledgement of our sex's innate weakness, would you really want her manicured hand on the nuclear button?

Oh shut up, seriously. Hormonal urge?? She's 60-- I think hormonal mood swings of PMS are behind her. And which way do you want to play it? Clinton't a bad leader because she wears pansuits (trying to be a man) or Clinton's a bad leader because she takes time to get manicures (trying too hard to be girly?) You can't have it both ways.

Power means convincing those you protect that everything's under control. For this reason, I have always had a male obstetrician oversee my four pregnancies.

Having a penis doesn't automatically equal power and superior OBGYN skills--- actually I think having a VAGINA might make you superior in that area.

My chauvinistic feelings may be sourced in the fact that every girl inherits the princess gene which dictates her desire for a strong male role model to cosset and comfort her.

In the words of one commenter at Feministe:

"No. You have a rescue fetish. Many women can save their own damn selves and appreciate men as friend and companions or just like living human beings rather than the knights in your own fantasy." (AMEN TO THAT!)

The fact is that when we women are tired, weak, compromised, in need of sympathy and vulnerable, nothing beats the strong arm of male capability and its implied protection.

And men never get tired, weak, compromised? Men never need sympathy? Men are never vulnerable? I sincerely pray this woman never has sons. It's just painful that ideas of this type of "manhood" still abound.

This is a classic example of why feminism is good for women AND MEN. A feminist woman understands that men are human, not superhero, not John Wayne put on this earth to "rescue" us damsel women. A real relationship means you have to rescue each other sometimes-- and it has very little to do with estrogen vs. testosterone.

To these highly skilled and talented women, I salute your success. But perhaps I'm even more grateful to those who don't get right to the top.

And I'm even more grateful that society at large sees through garbage like this nowadays.

It's positively painful to think there are still people in the world holding on to these antiquated, sexist ideals.

Monday, January 14, 2008

Happy on the way home

It's frickin' freezing here today!!

Most people go outside only when forced. And they spend that time keeping their head down to avoid the wind.

Days like today you're really thankful for those extra special swear words-- like, 'm*therf*cker' -- that's a good one for below zero temperatures with wind chill.

As I walked into my apartment I saw something amidst the snow, it made me really happy...

Aha, what is up ahead?

WOW-- it's contraception to the rescue!

YAY! Someone in my building knows about Plan B and is using it to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

It's enough to make me warm inside!

Please tell our leaders that it's not OK to sweep rape under the rug

Two years ago, 20 year old Jamie Leigh Jones was drugged, assaulted, and viciously gang raped on the job by her fellow coworkers. Learning of the attack, her employers placed her under armed guard in a shipping container for 24 hours without access to food or water.

Two years later, these horrific acts of unspeakable violence, as well as, the unbelievable reaction by her employers have gone unpunished and justice has not been served.

Why? How this could this happen? Because the 20 year old victim was a government contractor at KBR in the Green Zone in Baghdad, Iraq.

Jamie Leigh Jones, an American citizen, while employed by KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton was brutally gang raped by fellow KBR employees two years ago while stationed in Iraq. Army doctors performed a medical examination which showed that she had been raped (vaginally and anally). However, the rape kit was turned over to KBR and portions of the rape kit have vanished.

Jamie was then ordered by her KBR employers to remain in a shipping container under armed guard for 24 hours without access to food or water until she was rescued after her Member of Congress demanded action by the State Department.

After two years, not only has the Justice Department not brought any criminal charges, but ABC News recently reported that they could not confirm that any federal agency was investigating the case at all.

There are over 20,000 Americans employed by US government contractors in Iraq. These individuals have the same right to treatment, services, and proper investigations when they are the victims of violent crime as those of us here at home. Their offenders, who are paid with American taxpayer dollar, should be held accountable.

Since Jamie has gone public with her story, it is clear that this is not an isolated incident; many women working for US Government contractors face sexual assault and harassment. Yet, the perpetrators of these violent crimes are not held accountable and justice is not served.

The current state of affairs is absolutely unacceptable. Action is required.

Congresswoman Louise M. Slaughter along with Congressman Ted Poe and Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, are taking the first step to ensuring accountability. They are sending letters to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demanding answers in the KBR rape cases and asking them to clearly define the steps they are taking to ensure that what happened to Jamie will ever happen again.

They need YOUR help to get your Member of Congress to sign on to these letters. It’s been two years and it is obvious that the Departments of Defense and State are not taking this issue seriously. We need to show them that the House of Representatives demands action.

Please call your member of congress as soon as possible and ask them to sign on and demand answers about the KBR rape cases and how they plan to prevent these occurrences in the future.

With your help, we can take the first step to preventing what happened to Jamie from ever happening again.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

What do you make of this?

I really can't figure out this clip...

Around a minute a half in, Jenna Jameson tells audience at the Adult Video Awards (held in Vegas, Sat. January 12), "Honesty is key...I will never ever ever spread my legs again in this industry. Ever!"

This 'honest revelation' was met by boos from the audience.

What's this about? Why boo her for this statement? Is this the audience's way of showing their sadness at her leaving? Or is it some sort of sick misogynistic outburst along the lines of, "We'll tell you when you shut your legs, bitch?"

Am I reading too much into this or is this disturbing?

Well, it's entirely possibly I am misconstruing the crowd's boos, but I know for a fact what IS gross, the winner of the award Jameson presented, was Stormy Daniels, who said, "Well I plan on spreading my legs for this industry for quite some time."


Thursday, January 10, 2008

You only won cause people sorry for you!

Chris Matthews, you truly are the master of the immature, schoolyard taunt. Bravo for being more ill behaved than a 6th grader!

I'm not #1 Hillary fan but I'm getting pretty f-ing sick of this nonsense.

My message to Chris Matthews of Hardball:

Let's not forget that YOU got your job because our country seems to need a token, privileged, white man who decides that women win HUGE elections because people feel “sorry for them.” You know, Chris, I feel sorry for you because you’re an idiot but that doesn’t mean I feel so bad that I watch your show! Get a grip!

Thursday, January 03, 2008

Punishing young women for sex: the Jamie Lynn Spears edition

Breaking News: In the United States it is STILL not illegal to be pregnant!!!
By Guest Blogger, Adrienne


Two months ago, Jamie Lynn Spears was not only a teen star on a popular Nickelodeon show, she was also (ALAS, NO!!!) having sex. Two months ago, Jamie Lynn Spears was not registering a blip on the gossip—or conservative—radar, EVEN THOUGH she was engaged in a sexual relationship with her boyfriend.

Now, SUDDENLY, because there is EVIDENCE of that sexual relationship, she is a 'slut,' she has 'loose morals,' and, randomly, she's also a 'role model.' Funny, but I don't think I ever heard Jamie Lynn Spears referred to as a role model even once before all of this happened (and, just so you know, I think that choosing Jamie Lynn Spears as a role model for your child is ludicrous, regardless of her sexual choices). Moms are yanking their tween daughters from the living room because they don't want their daughters to catch the sex bug from the TV waves (first of all, AS IF Nickelodeon is going to shoot a show about Zoey being pregnant. Give me a break. If you moms weren't making such a big deal about it, your tweenagers would have no idea that it was happening. Promise.)

I'd like us all to engage in a little exercise. Raise your hand if you were a virgin at sixteen. Seriously. Last week I engaged in a conversation with some people who were so angry about Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy, saying that she was a role model with obviously loose morals. I just sat looking at them in shock—I knew for a fact that every single one of them (except for me—so there!) was having sex at 16. They just didn't get pregnant. So I asked them the same question I'd like to pose here:

Which headline would you rather read: "Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant at 16" or "Jamie Lynn Spears has an abortion at 16."

Obviously I am pro-choice. It is not illegal for Jamie Lynn to get an abortion with parental consent—how easy would it have been for her to just say, "Oh, I'm going to take a little break and go spend some time abroad" and get rid of the baby? HOW BRAVE for her to stand up and announce that she's pregnant and keeping it, knowing full well what it would do to her reputation and her career. But you don't hear anyone towing that line—just people being pissed that she's pregnant. Well guess what? What's done is done. Crabbing about it won't make her less pregnant.

I am also not for punishing celebrities for doing the same things that everyone is doing. When I said that to a friend last week, he said, "But don't they get paid a lot of money? Then it kind of comes with the territory doesn't it."

How lame. I am a teacher, I make just above minimum wage. My best friend works at a hospital and makes considerably more money. So, if I came out of the closet, would it be less controversial than if she did? Should every choice she makes be broadcast on a larger scale than mine because her paycheck is better?

While I'm at it: I am in a traditional 'role model' position—does it affect society more if I were to get pregnant out of wedlock than if the clerk at Shopko does?

I suppose that because we aren't stoning Jamie Lynn Spears in the town square it's telling your children that you condone teen pregnancy.

And, not to mention, would a male tween star be getting the same kind of flack for getting his girlfriend pregnant? Uh, no. Most likely they would say it wasn't theirs, call the girl a slut and a hoe bag, and quietly settle to pay her off. Take the money and say that this baby is not mine, that's the best you're going to get. Thank God we have the science to prove paternity, and I pray that if it ever happens that girl is smart enough and strong enough to demand a test before taking a settlement.

Come on people. It is such a conflicted point of view to say that she should have been 'responsible' when she was engaged in an activity that most kids her age are. I think it's fair to be disappointed, but at the end of the day if you're going to assign blame for something that has nothing to do with you, maybe you can start with yourself. What did YOU personally do to make sure that Jamie Lynn Spears was armed with the knowledge to protect herself, or the confidence to say no? What have you done today to make sure that other teen stars don't go down this same road—beside telling your daughter that she can't watch Zoey 101 anymore, even though the story line, script, setting, etc, will not change whatsoever?

At least, there are three great things that will come out of this. Jamie Lynn has the means to provide very well for her child, so this will not be another baby born into poverty, crime, drugs, etc. Secondly, maybe tween girls will stop watching so much tv all together. It would be fantastic if some actual role models could be chosen for girls—not to mention, less TV might actually mean that the sex bug WON'T infect your child from the millions of commercials and other TV shows that are trashy.

Thirdly, it would be fantastic if this could start a conversation. Ask your thirteen year old if her friends are having sex—but it might surprise you. Ask your teenage son about his friends. Talk about some options to replace intercourse. Talk about the consequences of sex (and no, pregnancy is not the worst one, just the most visible).

CLICK HERE to read Tobes' take on the Jamie Lynn Spears pregnancy story, published at the blog, Planned Parenthood advocate.

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

The color of your skin means you're not in pain

Very sad news via CNN.

A new study shows that emergency room doctors are prescribing strong narcotics (morphine, oxycodone etc) more often to patients who complain of pain. However white people get them more than minorities.

In more than 2,000 visits for kidney stones, whites got narcotics 72 percent of the time, Hispanics 68 percent, Asians 67 percent and blacks 56 percent.

Side Rant: Just a quick "duh" statement, if you'll pardon me:
72 percent vs. 56 percent is a big FUCKING disparity!

Minorities were slightly more likely than whites to get aspirin, ibuprofen and similar drugs for pain.

Wow. That's so distressing I don't know where to begin.

Over a year ago I was rushed to the ER with terrible abdominal pain. Even though I was 22, I remember being so scared that I was crying for my mother. I had never felt pain like that. Luckily, I had a very good doctor who, as soon as possible, hooked me up to an IV that made the pain stop. When it did, I could thankfully fall asleep.

Side Note: They found a large tumor on my ovary, which luckily (oh so luckily) for me, turned out to be benign.

The pain that I was in that night made me terribly afraid. It's horrifying to think that my white skin was the deciding factor in me getting adequate help vs. ibuprofen.

Obviously, ER doctors have to be careful and watch for drug seekers. But it's a HUGE stereotype to assume that drug seekers are minorities-- and it's an incorrect assumption at that:

The irony is that blacks are the least likely group to abuse prescription drugs. Hispanics are becoming as likely as whites to abuse prescription opioids and stimulants, according to research.

One doctor in the story commented that 'everyone has social bias' but it's especially disturbing to see this affecting our healthcare in this way. Witholding pain medication when someone is passing kidney stones is akin to torture. And there's something particularly telling that minorities are targeted. Is the bias against drug-seeking minorities, or do you just NOT CARE if those different from you are in pain?

If I were a doctor in the ER, maybe I would be just as bad. I can already tell you I may refuse pain meds to certain people based on my "social bias" --- only I'd pick shitty, white conservative pundits with proven history of drug seeking. This means you, Rush Limbaugh.