We are ready to witness another assault by those on the left upon Wal-Mart. The issue this time is Wal-Mart’s decision not to carry the morning-after pill. This is seen as an intentional obstruction to women seeking this pill.

The main irony here is that pro-choice groups are upset about the choice Wal-Mart has made. At a time when you cannot throw a rock without hitting a CVS or Rite-Aid, it seems to me a pathetic argument that Wal-Mart must sell this so that people will have access to it.

Next, consider this: Does Wal-Mart have the duty to provide this pill simply because it has been deemed legal? I say no, and here is why: The U.S. Supreme Court has also deemed child pornography legal, as long as it is computer-generated, rather than real. Does that mean I can sue a local bookstore for failing to sell it? Absolutely not.

But virtual child pornography does not involve a medical emergency. So, what if Wal-Mart chooses not to carry portable defibrillators, are they at fault? Absolutely not. They have made a business decision that is entirely within their right in a capitalist system. If you do not like it, shop somewhere else.

What we have here is the pro-abortion left continuing their attacks with the intent of taking away peoples’ ability to oppose abortion in any way. Now that does not sound very pro-choice to me.

Frank Phillips, Auburn