Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

New Oklahoma Abortion Law: Going Too Far

2456789

Posts

  • Adhoc2008Adhoc2008 Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Aroduc if a patient comes in with a hurt arm but refuses to have xrays done are you legally allowed to pin them down the the machine and force them?

    If they want treatment, i'd advise them that best practice insists i take x-rays, depending on hospital policy, i would then generally tell them the consequences of no treatment, give them some meds, and send them on their way. I'm not risking causing further harm to the patient because of a lack of information due to a test which is judged to be harmless in the conext of the injury/condition. Similarly for ultrasounds.

    These women want/need the abortion. If they didnt want the abortion, they could simply walk out and avoid abortion and ultrasound. That is why i suspect their is a medical basis for taking these ultrasounds. I could be wrong, but again, there is an information vacuum.

    This is just a step above hospital policy, it's government policy instead. I don't find that overly distressing, a politician's job is, for all intents, to create policy.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Of course an x-ray has a legitimate reason for treating a broken arm. An ultrasound for a abortion doesn't. how would you feel if they mandated a rectal exam for headaches? Just policy right? if the person doesn't want that blood clot in their head to explode why they should submit to an unnecessary test for no good reason.

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2008
    It ain't no policy, it's a law that mandates a doctor perform a procedure in all cases of abortion, no matter the circumstances.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Crayon wrote: »
    Cloudman wrote: »
    It's Oklahoma. Nothing too surprising about this, unfortunately.

    Har har har, it's demn dat darn southies. Have you ever been to Oklahoma or have any basis to make such a wild claim? Or are you just speculating because it's the South, as per the usual memorandum around here?

    I've been to Oklahoma, southern Missouri, western Kansas (well, actually all of Kansas), Louisiana, Kentuky, Georgia, and Texas (though only El Paso).

    I will say that this is exactly what I expect out of Oklahoma, or really from any of those places except maybe Texas. Largely because Texas is a large and varied enough that that I'll not generalize based solely on what I experienced in El Paso. That, and El Paso wasn't entirely fundietastic.

  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    It's mandating a medical procedure without a medical need. I cannot think of a single other instance of this on any book.

  • radroadkillradroadkill MDRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    I don't agree with this bill at all because I'm with the camp that think it's trying to make it harder for women to get abortions or discourage them to do so.

    But I want to know if Oklahoma is as retarded as Florida in requiring women to pay for them. Anyone know? That's just another can of worms.

    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    Like some sort of raptor or the Great panda, Rad cannot properly initiate egg preparation if she senses a disturbance within her environment.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    kildy wrote: »
    It's mandating a medical procedure without a medical need. I cannot think of a single other instance of this on any book.

    Ah, and if it requires a vaginal ultrasound that seems like a fairly invasive one to boot. Go Oklahoma! Bravely forging new trails into fuckedupdom!

    EDIT: Also, I suggest you keep it down radroadkill...they'll hear you, and if they haven't already done so I'm sure they'll love that idea as well.

  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    but of course not beyond the actions of these insane, evil people.

    o_O

    Please to being not so reactionary. Does anyone have a link? Their online system looks like a 9th grader put it together. Does the language specifically say the highest resolution image, or a high resolution image? There may be more than enough wiggle room for their democrat Attorney General to issue a relatively favorable reading of the bill.

    rodq.jpg
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/WebBillStatus/main.html
    Click on basic search form on the left side and then type SB 1878 under measure number. You can then download the house amendment.

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2008
    Okay here are some excerpts from SB 1878, the bill (caveat: I googled this and found a document which I am assuming is the one that got passed, but there may have been some changes)

    Doctors have to post a sign saying "no one can force you to have an abortion"
    Spoiler:

    And you can get fined $10,000 if you don't
    Spoiler:

    Section 12, outlining the ultrasound requirement
    Spoiler:

    All sorts of bad things if you don't comply
    Spoiler:


    Didn't see any mention of who pays for the procedure.

  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Hrm, a quick check on HIPAA seems to imply that at the very least you can't make insurance pay for any of this, because it's legally necessary, but HIPAA fines you if a procedure is not medically necessary. I'll need to read more, but occasionally said law makes me happy and overturns medical stupidity. I'm not as well versed in the non IT aspects of it however.

    edit: Billing for a medically unnecessary procedure is $10,000 per instance, by the by.
    4. Provide a medical description of the ultrasound images, which shall include the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, if present and viewable, and the presence of external members and internal organs, if present and viewable; and

    5. Obtain a written certification from the woman, prior to the abortion, that the requirements of subsection B have been complied with; and

    Those are both unbelievably morally objectionable.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly
    What is the difference between them?

  • Curly_BraceCurly_Brace Not a Robot Skeleton A Robot Skeleton PartyRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Septus wrote: »
    but of course not beyond the actions of these insane, evil people.

    o_O

    Please to being not so reactionary. Does anyone have a link? Their online system looks like a 9th grader put it together. Does the language specifically say the highest resolution image, or a high resolution image? There may be more than enough wiggle room for their democrat Attorney General to issue a relatively favorable reading of the bill.

    I got understandably upset about this, but yeah I still think these legislators are evil.

    This blog here is among several sources which note a doctor is required to perfom the type of Ultrasound that will produce the clearest image, i.e. a Vaginal Ultrasound in most cases. I'm not too eager to cite a blog for obvious reasons.

    EDIT: Thanks, Medopine!
    In any case it's still an invasion of privacy. A doctor should never be forced to do anything that would override the patient's consent. If a woman wants an abortion sans Ultrasound, even if the doctor thinks the ultrasound is medically nessessary (which again is a rare case) then that is absoluetly her right. The doctor might refuse treatment in this rare case, but at least they (the doctor and woman) were able to make those decisions for themselves.

    And it's pretty clear in this bill the doctor will be punished for violating this law, even though obeying this law may violate their own professional or personal ethics. It seems to be written to trap the doctors between a rock and a hard place, obviously. Damned if they do (violate ethics, insurance companies can come after them) damned if they don't (fines and liscense to work in Ok revoked) situation.

    tQCnY.giftom_sig2.jpg
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Insurance companies have a policy of pretty much not paying for anything they can avoid and even then delaying paying as long as possible. Oddly it'd probably be them who would land it in court by refusing to pay for a medically unnecessary procedure.

  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Insurance companies have a policy of pretty much not paying for anything they can avoid and even then delaying paying as long as possible. Oddly it'd probably be them who would land it in court by refusing to pay for a medically unnecessary procedure.

    Doctors will land it in court first. Unless that state is downright strange, I don't know a single doctor who would do this, even the ones who object to abortion.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Me wrote:
    http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/WebBillStatus/main.html
    Click on basic search form on the left side and then type SB 1878 under measure number. You can then download the house amendment.

    The bill doesn't count "prescription of contraceptives" as abortions.

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2008
    The bill also provides for employees of doctors and clinics the freedom to morally/religiously object to participating in abortion procedures.

    It's so obvious the point of this law is to crack down on those crazy "abortionists" who force everyone around them to help them perform abortions on women they trick into coming in to the clinic. All so they can make money muahahaha!

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    "By strengthening the ultrasound provision of their law, the Oklahoma legislature has created the strongest, most protective ultrasound law in the nation," said Mary Spaulding Balch, state legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). "They are doing everything possible to ensure that a mother is given the opportunity to see her unborn child in real-time and learn all the facts before making the life and death decision of abortion."
    They are barely even trying to pretend that this bill is for something other than stopping abortions.

  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Crayon wrote: »
    Cloudman wrote: »
    It's Oklahoma. Nothing too surprising about this, unfortunately.

    Har har har, it's demn dat darn southies. Have you ever been to Oklahoma or have any basis to make such a wild claim? Or are you just speculating because it's the South, as per the usual memorandum around here?
    You aren't big on geography, eh?

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    I got understandably upset about this, but yeah I still think these legislators are evil.

    Clearly I do not understand your definition of evil.

    A doctor should never be forced to do anything that would override the patient's consent. If a woman wants an abortion sans Ultrasound, even if the doctor thinks the ultrasound is medically nessessary (which again is a rare case) then that is absoluetly her right. The doctor might refuse treatment in this rare case, but at least they (the doctor and woman) were able to make those decisions for themselves.

    And it's pretty clear in this bill the doctor will be punished for violating this law, even though obeying this law may violate their own professional or personal ethics. It seems to be written to trap the doctors between a rock and a hard place, obviously. Damned if they do (violate ethics, insurance companies can come after them) damned if they don't (fines and liscense to work in Ok revoked) situation.

    In this case, I don't think the argument of forcing a procedure works, as far as medical ethics, as the woman has an (terrible) option of not having the abortion at all.

    As far as "whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly," what is the actual difference in display between the two methods? Is there some minor benefit to the display in some manner, for the abdominal version?

    rodq.jpg
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    The bill also provides for employees of doctors and clinics the freedom to morally/religiously object to participating in abortion procedures.

    It's so obvious the point of this law is to crack down on those crazy "abortionists" who force everyone around them to help them perform abortions on women they trick into coming in to the clinic. All so they can make money muahahaha!

    If I'm reading that right, it isn't just abortion procedures that they can object to participating in.
    An employer shall not discriminate against an employee or prospective employee by refusing to reasonably accommodate the religious observance or practice of the employee or prospective employee, unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would pose an undue hardship on the program, enterprise, or business of the employer, in the following circumstances:
    1. An abortion as defined in Section 1-730 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes. The provisions of this section shall not apply if the pregnant woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness which, as certified by a physician, causes the woman to be in imminent danger of death unless an abortion is immediately performed or induced and there are no other competent personnel available to attend to the woman. As used in this act, the term “abortion” shall not include the prescription of contraceptives;
    2. An experiment or medical procedure that destroys an in vitro human embryo or uses cells or tissue derived from the destruction of an in vitro human embryo;
    3. An experiment or medical procedure on an in vitro human embryo that is not related to the beneficial treatment of the in vitro human embryo;
    4. An experiment or medical procedure on a developing child in an artificial womb, at any stage of development, that is not related to the beneficial treatment of the developing child;
    5. A procedure, including a transplant procedure, that uses fetal tissue or organs that come from a source other than a stillbirth or miscarriage; or
    6. An act that intentionally causes or assists in causing the death of an individual by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2008
    Description of transvaginal ultrasound:
    Transvaginal ultrasound is performed very much like a gynecologic exam and involves the insertion of the transducer into the vagina after the patient empties her bladder. The tip of the transducer is smaller than the standard speculum used when performing a Pap test. A protective cover is placed over the transducer, lubricated with a small amount of gel and then inserted into the vagina. Only two to three inches of the transducer end are inserted into the vagina. The images are obtained from different orientations to get the best views of the uterus and ovaries. Transvaginal ultrasound is usually performed with the patient lying on her back, possibly with her feet in stirrups similar to a gynecologic exam.
    http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=pelvus&bhcp=1

  • Curly_BraceCurly_Brace Not a Robot Skeleton A Robot Skeleton PartyRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    The bill also provides for employees of doctors and clinics the freedom to morally/religiously object to participating in abortion procedures.

    It's so obvious the point of this law is to crack down on those crazy "abortionists" who force everyone around them to help them perform abortions on women they trick into coming in to the clinic. All so they can make money muahahaha!

    Yup, right on the money: casting your opponents (doctors, gay people, atheists, Christians, Americans, etc.) as eeeeevil is a pretty common and often horrifingly effective tactic. It can also be hilariously ridiculous.

    Mind you, not that these legislators actually believe gay muslim abortionists are trying to take over America by killing all the white babies, all with the help of Barack Hussein Obama and the ACLU. They just say that so the ignorant, fearful bigots out there vote for them. Pandering to the lowest common denomenator, if you will. It's actually a pretty smart thing to do, if you look at in a "how to remain popular" way. Of course some politicans are ignorant, fearful bigots.

    tQCnY.giftom_sig2.jpg
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    An evil act is an evil act whatever the intentions

  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    The bill also provides for employees of doctors and clinics the freedom to morally/religiously object to participating in abortion procedures.

    It's so obvious the point of this law is to crack down on those crazy "abortionists" who force everyone around them to help them perform abortions on women they trick into coming in to the clinic. All so they can make money muahahaha!

    Yup, right on the money: casting your opponents (doctors, gay people, atheists, Christians, Americans, etc.) as eeeeevil is a pretty common and often horrifingly effective tactic. It can also be hilariously ridiculous.

    Mind you, not that these legislators actually believe gay muslim abortionists are trying to take over America by killing all the white babies, all with the help of Barack Hussein Obama and the ACLU. They just say that so the ignorant, fearful bigots out there vote for them. Pandering to the lowest common denomenator, if you will. It's actually a pretty smart thing to do, if you look at in a "how to remain popular" way. Of course some politicans are ignorant, fearful bigots.
    Are you lauding their tactics?

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Wow, they can actually force penetration on a woman in Oklahoma now.

    Greeeat.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2008
    Good lord.

    "If we can't make it illegal, we're sure going to fuck with them while they're doing it.

    Spoiler:
  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    I've been to Oklahoma (Tulsa Oklahoma to be exact) and that place is so backwards and, to put it in so many words, fucked up that I'm not at all surprise that they would pass a law like this.

    It's stuff like this that makes me cringe every time I think how close the Bible Belt is located to me (I'm in Denver and Colorado Springs is on the fringes of the Bible Belt).

    steam_sig.png
  • Curly_BraceCurly_Brace Not a Robot Skeleton A Robot Skeleton PartyRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    The bill also provides for employees of doctors and clinics the freedom to morally/religiously object to participating in abortion procedures.

    It's so obvious the point of this law is to crack down on those crazy "abortionists" who force everyone around them to help them perform abortions on women they trick into coming in to the clinic. All so they can make money muahahaha!

    Yup, right on the money: casting your opponents (doctors, gay people, atheists, Christians, Americans, etc.) as eeeeevil is a pretty common and often horrifingly effective tactic. It can also be hilariously ridiculous.

    Mind you, not that these legislators actually believe gay muslim abortionists are trying to take over America by killing all the white babies, all with the help of Barack Hussein Obama and the ACLU. They just say that so the ignorant, fearful bigots out there vote for them. Pandering to the lowest common denomenator, if you will. It's actually a pretty smart thing to do, if you look at in a "how to remain popular" way. Of course some politicans are ignorant, fearful bigots.
    Are you lauding their tactics?
    Their message is antithetical to everything I am. I'm noting how they use bigotry to stay in power, even if they don't believe it themselves. Objectivley I kinda have to give them props for using a very effective method of staying in power. So bravo for them for being able to sleep at night, I guess.

    tQCnY.giftom_sig2.jpg
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    This is one of the most insane pieces of legislation I've seen. Glorious wording too.

  • radroadkillradroadkill MDRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Good lord.

    "If we can't make it illegal, we're sure going to fuck with them while they're doing it.

    Pretty much.

    Nerdgasmic wrote: »
    Like some sort of raptor or the Great panda, Rad cannot properly initiate egg preparation if she senses a disturbance within her environment.
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Surely this is undue burden. Surely the courts will strike this down.

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Seriously though what's next? Have children come in and talk to the woman beforehand, maybe a priest to tell her she'll go to hell, have the doctor ask her if she's a slut who couldn't keep her legs closed?

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    The bill also provides for employees of doctors and clinics the freedom to morally/religiously object to participating in abortion procedures.

    It's so obvious the point of this law is to crack down on those crazy "abortionists" who force everyone around them to help them perform abortions on women they trick into coming in to the clinic. All so they can make money muahahaha!

    Yup, right on the money: casting your opponents (doctors, gay people, atheists, Christians, Americans, etc.) as eeeeevil is a pretty common and often horrifingly effective tactic. It can also be hilariously ridiculous.

    Mind you, not that these legislators actually believe gay muslim abortionists are trying to take over America by killing all the white babies, all with the help of Barack Hussein Obama and the ACLU. They just say that so the ignorant, fearful bigots out there vote for them. Pandering to the lowest common denomenator, if you will. It's actually a pretty smart thing to do, if you look at in a "how to remain popular" way. Of course some politicans are ignorant, fearful bigots.
    Are you lauding their tactics?
    Their message is antithetical to everything I am. I'm noting how they use bigotry to stay in power, even if they don't believe it themselves. Objectivley I kinda have to give them props for using a very effective method of staying in power. So bravo for them for being able to sleep at night, I guess.
    If you are giving props, guess what, it's not objective.

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Kagera wrote: »
    Seriously though what's next? Have children come in and talk to the woman beforehand, maybe a priest to tell her she'll go to hell, have the doctor ask her if she's a slut who couldn't keep her legs closed?

    And ask her if she has talked about this to the father, because, he may have interest in raising the child**.



    **Once he's out of prison for...you know...the rape.

  • CaelestoCaelesto Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Why can't women hop on a bus to another state (or drive)? I know it's a pain, and of course no one should have to...but as a temporary measure it seems like it'd work. While the courts go about bending this law over their knees (I hope), why can't women just get abortions out of state?

    Oklahoma is surrounded by States which (to my knowledge) are much more lenient on abortions and the restrictions thereof. And of course it's expensive to travel, but is it more expensive than a medical procedure that women don't want or need?

    In all likelihood, this is my fault. If the current situation is not my fault, please let me know as soon as possible so that I may rectify this oversight. Thank you.
    ~The Management
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2008
    They can and will.

    If they can afford it.

  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    An evil act is an evil act whatever the intentions
    So, guess that means they'd lose their Paladin levels until the Cleric casts an atonement spell?

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Crayon wrote: »
    Cloudman wrote: »
    It's Oklahoma. Nothing too surprising about this, unfortunately.

    Har har har, it's demn dat darn southies. Have you ever been to Oklahoma or have any basis to make such a wild claim? Or are you just speculating because it's the South, as per the usual memorandum around here?
    Highlights from the Oklahoma Republican party platform:
    We encourage an adoption process that recognizes the rights of parents while maintaining safeguards for the children. Except for adoption by a qualified relative (as defined by existing law), we support adoption only by traditional families.

    We believe marriage should not be entered into casually and not be allowed to bedissolved easily. Therefore we call for states to repeal “no-fault” divorce statutes.

    We support Federal and State legislation, including a Constitutional Amendment, whichprohibit recognition of same-gender marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships.

    We believe that in order to encourage and protect family values, those promotinghomosexuality or other aberrant lifestyles should not be allowed to hold responsible positions over children or other vulnerable persons.

    We affirm the state‟s recognition that marriage between one man and one woman is a covenant relationship, instituted by God, not to be entered into casually, and is fundamental to our very existence and survival as a nation.

    For the unity of our nation, we strongly encourage and support the establishment ofEnglish as the official language.

    We oppose the promotion of homosexuality, the elimination of laws against sodomy, andthe granting of minority protection or special status to any person based upon sexual preference or lifestyle choices.

    We believe that homosexuality is not a genetic trait, but a chosen lifestyle.

    We support drug testing for any person applying for or receiving any type of government aid. If illegal drugs are found to be present, all government assistance should beterminated until that person is drug free for at least six months. We believe anyone whois an habitual illegal drug user should not receive any type of government aid.

    We encourage rigorous enforcement of all anti-pornography laws. Government agencies or tax-supported institutions, especially libraries and public schools, should not provideaccess to pornography.

    We affirm the right of private associations to admit or deny membership based on what these associations‟ conscience dictates.

    We believe that government should not fund any organization that opposes the ideas andprinciples contained in the Republican Platform.

    The traditional family unit, consisting of a (husband) man, (wife) woman and child(ren), is the foundation of our social structure. The Oklahoma Department of Educationand various Boards of Regents should uphold and teach this definition of traditional family at all levels of public and higher education.

    Parents have a Constitutional right to home school their children. We oppose any andall regulation of home schooling.

    The Ten Commandments should be posted in all public schools as a means of moral guidance along with our national motto “In God We Trust” and the Bill of Rights.

    Public Schools shall promote the Judeo-Christian worldview upon which our countrywas founded. Public Schools shall be prohibited from promoting other worldviews such as, but not limited to secular Humanism, New Age philosophy, deep ecology, reincarnation, psychotherapy, channeling, transcendental meditation, altered states ofconsciousness or any occult practice.

    American heritage should be taught in public schools and include representativegovernment, limited government, lives and beliefs of the founders, influence of the Bible and religion on our laws and principles, and the concept of free enterprise. Students should study directly from the primary founding documents, which teach the distributionof power among three branches of federal government and between federal and stategovernment.

    Where evolution is taught, intelligent design must be taught as well. The differences between fact and theory shall be included in instruction.

    Federally mandated AIDS education shall hold to the following guidelines:a. Neither homosexual nor extramarital sexual activity shall be presented as safe, nor shall they be presented as morally or socially acceptable behaviors. b. AIDS shall be presented as incurable and fatal. c. Abstinence or lifetime fidelity shall be presented as the only safe sexual practices. d. All materials and instruction shall be open to prior parental review (opt in vs. opt out)
    Keep in mind the Republican majorities in Oklahoma are huge, and Tom Coburn still won his senate seat after this little gem:
    Tom Coburn wrote:
    Lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they’ll only let one girl go to the bathroom.
    Your state's a shithole of intolerance because it chooses to be, you don't get to bitch when people have come to expect it to be.

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    They forgot their support for Jim Crow laws.

    Or is it just implied by default?

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
Sign In or Register to comment.