Should Walmart Be Required to Stock "Morning After" Pill?: CNN Poll

CNN.com ^

[gsrinok]

What a Stupid Question! Why should Walmart be forced to stock abortion pills?

[gsrinok]

Yes -- 51% No -- 49%

DU dimbulbs are hitting this hard.

[z3n]

No one is going to die if they don't stock it (except a future human life, perhaps).

In soviet russia the pill shop you.

[garyhope]

Maybe a "think about it before you remove your pants and panties the night before" pill would be a better idea.

It would be cheaper and less painful in the long run.

[D-Chivas]

A better question is: "Should Wal-Mart be required to stock my favorite brand of barbeque sauce?"

[gsrinok]

Maybe a "think about it before you remove your pants and panties the night before" pill would be a better idea.

That would imply that there are consequences for the actions that you take, which would be offensive to the left-wing loons who think that abortions should be paid for by our tax dollars.

[z3n]

It just goes to show, while any democrat will deny fervently that they are not socialists, ask them a question about state control of the private sector, and they bite on it every time.

[AD from SpringBay]

Why should Walmart be forced to stock abortion pills?

Because:

#1 - Wal-Mart is EVIL, EVIL I tell you!!

#2 - It is a Constitutional right to have sex without consequence, just like it shows on 'tha tee vee' all the time.

#3 - Mama Guv'mint said so.

#4 - The morning after pill is different than other products Wal-Mart has the right to choose from because the morning after pill helps abort babies and everything must be done in order to encourage the abortion of babies.

[joebuck]

"A better question is: "Should Wal-Mart be required to stock my favorite brand of barbeque sauce?"

Touche! That sums it up quite nicely.

[elli1]

If they stock erectile dysfunction drugs, then 'Yeh'.

[WV Mountain Mama]

That is the perfect reply, I second it.

[SittinYonder]

The women said they knew they would be refused when they went to the Wal-Marts in Quincy and Lynn and that the action was planned with the abortion rights groups and lawyers.

All lawsuits such as this one should be tossed. Where the plaintiffs say they set it up, especially with an advocacy group of any kind, it's simply a way to use the courts to get backdoor legislation passed. I'm sick of it and I don't care who does this sort of thing or what they're advocating.

If a woman goes to Walmart the morning after, can't buy the pill, doesn't have enough sense to go somewhere else, gets pregnant and is burdened with a child for the rest of her life, then she can sue. But unless you're toting a baby to prove you were inconvenienced by Walmart's policy, then you don't have standing.

Besides, they all three look like lesbians to me. I don't think it was an "issue."

[nonliberal]

If we lived in a free country, I would vote no.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

They should also be required to stock guns and ammunition.

[AbeKrieger]

No store should be forced to carry ANYTHING it does not want to, or chooses not to. For any reason, at any time.

My local Walmart does not sell tires. I want to by tires there... does that mean I shoudl file suit?

This is more of the liberal, feminist, union, and democrat lobbies hoping to tie Wal Mart up in endless litigation and cost them millions. Plain and simple, it is an assault on free-market capitalism.

[gsrinok]

Yes -- 51%
No -- 49 %

Unbelievable.

[cripplecreek]

If they can make a buck it won't matter.

[SittinYonder]

meant to ping you to #12

[toddlintown]

Required?

[edcoil]

"What a Stupid Question! Why should Walmart be forced to stock abortion pills?"

Should the government of China be able to limit what Google does?