Wal-Mart has often been a water-bearer for conservatives in the culture wars. It has refused to sell CDs that offended certain conservative groups or criticized the company. Mostly those of rappers (surprise, surprise) and shock acts like Marilyn Manson, but they refused to carry one of Sheryl Crow's CDs because a song on it accused the company of selling guns to kids. Same thing with magazines that contain sexual content. They also use their market-dominating clout to get record labels to censor CDs that contain lyrics that they don't like.

That they are now refusing to sell emergency contraception doesn't surprise me one tiny little bit. Wal-Mart already thinks so little of women that it denies them their justly-earned places in management; why should it give a damn about their health? Why should it care that a woman might have to go to extreme lengths to get emergency contraception because Wal-Mart won't stock it and the local pharmacy that might have provided it has been driven out of business? It is all part of the right wings's conspiracy to roll back the rights of women, especially the right to control our reproductive systems.

And of course they are part and parcel of the hypocrisy and mean-spiritedness that is the hallmark of modern conservatism.

While they censor songs, they sell R-rated movies and Mature-rated games. While they pretend to be guardians of public morality, they treat their employees in profoundly immoral ways (denying promotions to women, forcing employees to work off the clock, redefining jobs so that the elderly and disabled can't perform them, offloading health insurance costs onto the already cash-strapped states, and so forth). While they won't stock emergency contraception, I've never heard of a Wal-Mart pharmacy refusing to carry Viagara.

What seems kind of odd about this is that they're passing up a good business opportunity for the sake of ideology. For a company that is determined to squeeze every penny out of its suppliers, employees, and local governments, they seem strangely indifferent to the economic benefits of having a fully-stocked pharmacy. They'd make plenty of money on the EC prescriptions plus the stuff that women would inevitably buy when they were waiting for their prescriptions to be filled.

We also hate to deprive our kids, but if we're not vigilant we'll be engulfed in a tide of plastic toys!

Birthday presents aren't a huge problem. My sons prefer small parties with their close friends, which is manageable. We also stash away toys that they're not currently playing with and pass on any toys that they don't want to others. They also periodically purge their toys and games and give the ones that they've outgrown to either their small cousins, my parents (who like to keep a stash of kid toys/games in their house for when the grandkids visit), or a thrift store. The boys especially like to give their toys to my sister's daughters, who love to play with "big boy" things from their older cousins.

For their birthdays, my husband and I try to give them one significant present, such as a bike or some other long-desired item. If they want a big-ticket gift, we have them contribute some money towards it. My parents did this when we were children and I felt more ownership and appreciation of gifts because of it.

But still the stuff accumulates. My husband and I have definite pack rat tendencies, which our kids have inherited. We all hate to get rid of things because you never know when you'll need them!

Another problem is our relatives. They've showered the kids with presents and get upset when we ask them to please cut back. Suggesting that they buy smaller things like Brio train pieces or Legos has helped.

Making up gift bags for kids in shelters or poor schools sounds like a great idea and I will propose this for the next round of birthday parties.

... is whether you believe the ends justify the means. SHAC clearly does.

He is too cowardly to face an audience that isn't hand-picked by his handlers and must at all costs be protected from his adoring public.

Coretta King's funeral is about the only chance these people have to address him about the problems of his administration in a forum where they can't be shuffled off to a remote "free speech" zone or arrested for wearing a T-shirt.

They knew it would be easier to get pregnant when they were younger, but they waited too long because they selfishly wanted careers, or they were too picky about snagging a husband, or they didn't think they could financially support a child when they were younger, or they had some other morally bankrupt reason for not getting knocked up earlier in life. Tough cookies to the lot of them.

While we're at it, let's also not devote any resources to treat obese people for heart disease and diabetes. They knew it was unhealthy to be overweight but they just could not stop being gluttons. Ditto smokers with lung cancer. Forget about treating people with sexually transmitted diseases -- they should have been abstinent instead of indulging their lust. And what about those who get injured playing sports? They knew there was an element of risk in, say, skiing, but they self-indulgently went ahead and did it anyway. Now we all have to pay for their folly.

You can see what I'm getting at here. Why single out infertility (especially in older women) when nobody complains about covering other ailments that, at least on some level, result from the choices people make? It strikes me that there's an element of moral condemnation in discussing infertility that is simply missing from discussions about other kinds of health problems, except possibly those resulting from sex.