On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, John Hinsley wrote:

> > For example, I don't shop
> > at any Walmart/Sam's Club for a great number of moral reasons (rabid union
> > busting behavior, saturation stragety, not carrying a majority of valid
> > and approved birth control devices).  That makes a little more sense, as
> > when one shops at Walmart, they support with their dollars their moral
> > agenda.
> > >
>
> Strangely, in Europe Walmart (Asda over here) stock a pretty wide
> assortment of condoms and such. While they're probably not the best
> employers, there are certainly worse ones here.  Maybe some more direct
> political pressure could get them to see the value of a more pragmatic
> approach in the US?

They have Walmart in Europe?  Wasn't aware.  :)  The problem is usually
condoms (although, they're often locked up at night), so much as other
forms of birth control, like various forms of oral contraceptives.  The
pharmacy does not stock it.  This wouldn't be such a large problem, but in
a lot of rural areas in the US, Walmart is one of the only stores for
miles, and often one of the only pharmacies for even a bigger radius.
This isn't surprising, seeing how one of Walmart's core strategy is to
choke out smaller businesses and saturate the area with its own stores,
leaving only the stores which gross enough profit (saturation strategy).

I think it's Walmart's right to carry what they want, be it for a simple
business reason or because of a religious agenda.  Again, the voting for
dollars issue comes in.  I believe Walmart should carry such
contraceptives as a public health issues, and thusly choose not to hand
them my money.

Regards,
Aaron

  Aaron Reichow  ::  UMD ACM Pres  ::  http://www.d.umn.edu/~reic0024/
"the profit system follows the path of least resistance and following the path
    of least resistance is what makes a river crooked."   ::  u. utah phillips