This article was in Rush's stack of stuff that he reads to prep for his show for this last Thursday.

It seems that ... never mind ... the article is short. I'll paste it all here. Just so you know, it is an AP wire piece. I have obtained it from the online version of ABC News.

BOSTON Feb 2, 2006 — Backed by abortion rights groups, three Massachusetts women sued Wal-Mart on Wednesday, accusing the retail giant of violating a state regulation by failing to stock emergency contraception pills in its pharmacies.

The lawsuit, filed in state court, seeks to force the company to carry the morning-after pill in its 44 Wal-Marts and four Sam Club stores in Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs argued that state policy requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines."

Wal-Mart carries the morning-after pill in Illinois only, where it is required under state law, said Dan Fogleman, a spokesman for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart.

Fogleman said the company "chooses not to carry many products for business reasons." He would not elaborate. But in a letter to a lawyer for the plaintiffs, a Wal-Mart attorney said the store chain does not regard the drug as "commonly prescribed."

CVS, the state's largest pharmacy chain, stocks the pill at all of its drugstores.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Where do you want to start on this?

Keep in mind that to sue someone, basically, means that the plaintiff feels that the defendant has violated either the rights of the plaintiff, or the defendant has failed to live up to the legal responsibilities the defendant has to the plaintiff.

Let's start with the basic capitalist viewpoint. Since when is it a customer's right under law, or a court's jurisdiction under law to dictate to the owner or proprietor of a business to carry a given product?

Let me elaborate on this point for a bit.

First, the size of the business really doesn't matter. It could be a chain the size of Wal-Mart, or your local bar with 4 bar stools, and two tables.

I could understand if, let's say, someone was suing a supposed "gas station" that had no type of motor vehicle fuel for sale. But that is not the case here.

Let me re-frame the question.

Let's use the local bar example I used above. There are the big three American beers: Budweiser, Miller, and Coors. The proprietor of this bar only carries one. Let's say Bud. He has made a choice that is going to exclude people that like the other two from patronizing his establishment. Thereby, limiting the business, and the profits that he will receive. There could be multiple reasons for his choice: the local Bud distributor offered him a better price if he didn't sell the other two; the proprietor is a big fan of the Rams (football) or Cardinals (baseball); the Bud distributor offered the same prices as the others, but gave him a cool set of lights to put over the pool tables if he didn't sell the others; the proprietor simply doesn't like Miller or Coors; among many others.

So, does this choice by the proprietor violate the rights of the guy (Coors only drinker) who lives next door to the bar? (Thereby giving him grounds to sue)

Next question:

Is Wal-Mart the only pharmacy in the entire state of Massachusetts?

It isn't. The article says so.

It's not even the largest pharmacy chain in the state. The article says so.

We haven't even discussed whether somewhere in the entire state of Massachusetts there might be a pharmacy or two (0r more) that are not part of a chain.

So, at this point, we will exagerate the example in the direction of the plaintiff.

Let's go back to a variation on our local bar example from before.

The proprietor is now in charge of Billy Bob's Texas, in Fort Worth, TX. (One of the largest bars in the state. So much so, that major country recording artists on big venue tours make sure they play at Billy Bob's. Guys like Willy Nelson. [I have a "Live at Billy Bob's" CD by Willie Nelson])

So, our proprietor is now in charge of the largest bar in the largest metroplex in one of the most populous states in the nation.

Still, there are 4 or 5 other bars within a reasonable walking distance, and several convenience stores that sell all of the big three beers.

Does the proprietor now have a legal responsibility to carry Miller and/or Coors along with his beloved Bud?

It may not be the best business choice, but has our proprietor met the criteria spelled out above to be sued?

(Back to the article)

Wal-Mart is not even the biggest pharmacy chain in the state.

Remember?

CVS, the state's largest pharmacy chain, stocks the pill at all of its drugstores.

My final point, and I think this one is a doozy!

Let me quote, again:

"The plaintiffs argued that state policy requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines."

Just how "commonly" is the Morning After pill prescribed (and it is a prescription drug)?

Let's explore this point for a moment.

Let's say that roughly half (anywhere from 40-60%) of the state of Massachusetts is male.

Do you really think that they are going to have the Morning After pill prescribed to them?

Next, how many of the rest, the women, are, actually, having sex? How many of that 40-60% are, let's say (rather broadly) under the age of 12, and not having sex, barring incest? How many of those who are having sex under the age of, let's say, 18 (consensual or otherwise) would actually obtain a prescription of the Morning After Pill?

So, in any meaningful fashion, we are left with the women over 18 that are having sex. How many of those are past menopause, and, therefore, not in need of the Morning After pill?

So, once again, let's use the broadest sense, how many women between the ages of, let's say, 18 and 50 are having sex where they are not protected by some type of contraceptive device to include birth control pills?

So, the Morning After pill will only, feasibly, be prescribed to a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of roughly half of the population.

To wrap up:

If you want to indict a business that calls itself, in part, a pharmacy that doesn't sell any type of pain reliever such as: Tylenol (acetomeniphen), aspirin, or Motrin (ibuprofen); or antacids, or antibiotics, cold/allergy remedies; (among other such things) then I can see suing them for not having commonly prescribed medicines.

But this?

This is just the example of a petulant customer dictating the business practices of one business when they have the choice of several different similar estblishments to frequent.

So, we are back, basically, to our original question:

The plaintiffs (consumer) have multiple, potential sources for a product that they want/need/think they need to buy.

Of course, barring that the source is not violating any Truth-in-Advertising law. Is it reasonable to sue one of those sources for choosing not to sell that product for whatever reason?