Peter Baklinski

,

Girl Guides of Canada supports pro-abortion groups

Peter Baklinski
Peter Baklinski

TORONTO, February 14, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – As US pro-life activists lead a boycott campaign on the Girl Scouts, the Girl Guides of Canada has been caught partnering with and supporting organizations that actively promote contraception and abortion as empowering to girls.

Promising to be “true to myself” and to “take action for a better world” Girl Guide members have been sent as youth representatives to pro-abortion conferences in the developing world and to a leadership training camp run by a pro-abortion-and-contraception organization. They have worked for organizations promoting “reproductive health” in poor countries.

Critics have called the revelation “appalling” and a “betrayal” of women.

Girl Guides members sent to pro-abortion ‘Women Deliver’ conference

Girl Guides of Canada sent youth representatives to the 2013 Women Deliver conference in Malaysia, a global event where the world’s leading abortion and population-control advocates — including Microsoft billionaire Melinda Gates; abortionist LeRoy Carhart; Catholics for a Free Choice founder Frances Kissling; and Princeton infanticide advocate Peter Singer — made presentations.

“Participating in the conference also allowed me to grow as a human being and learn to appreciate many of the things I take for granted on a daily basis,” wrote Rukaiyah Lakkadghatwala, a Girl Guide for 11 years, on the GirlGuidesCAN blog. “Attending the conference also allowed me to fully appreciate how the Girl Guides of Canada supports our growth and development into strong women.”

Grade 11 student Carly Checholik said she was glad to be chosen as a representative since she has “been a fan of what Women Deliver stands for a few years now.”

Checholik said her “highlight” from the conference was when a panel addressed her concerns about the “education of young girls when it comes to sexual and reproductive rights.”

“I cherish the way Women Deliver opened my eyes and gave me a first-hand look at the problems facing people my age around the world,” she wrote on the GirlGuidesCAN blog.

Girl Guides members receive exclusive training from ‘sexual rights’ organization

Last year Girl Guides of Canada sent girls to a leadership training camp near Montreal called Young Women’s Leadership Program run by Girls Action Foundation, an organization that promotes homosexuality, oral sex, anal sex, lesbian “humping,” sex toys, abortion, and contraception.

“Honestly, I was totally engrossed, being surrounded by girls who care about the issues I do and wanted to do their best to change for the better was awe-inspiring,” wrote Girl Guide Elizabeth from Kelowna, BC on GirlGuidesCAN’s blog.

Girl Guides partners with organizations teaching ‘reproductive health’ in developing world

In 2012, Girl Guides from Nova Scotia ages 9-17 sewed reusable sanitary pads for the Jamii Foundation, an organization that teaches children in Kenya about “reproductive health,” “contraceptives,” and “healthy relationships.”

Life and family leaders point out that ‘reproductive health’ is generally synonymous with sex education that emphasizes non-marital sex, the promotion of greater access to abortion, and the promotion of contraception.

Candace Tattrie, director of the Jamii Foundation, said at that time that she was “overwhelmed” by the Girl Guides “support and eagerness to change lives.”

Girl Guides partners with organization promoting abortion as ‘sexual health’

Among Girl Guides of Canada partners is Plan International, an organization with an outreach program for girls called “Because I am a Girl” that equates sexual health for girls with easy access to abortion and contraception.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

“[It’s about] having control over your own body when it comes to having sex and having children,” the group states on its website for teens.

“Girls and women have been in a looonnggggg (sic) fight to have control over their own bodies, especially when it comes to getting pregnant and having babies. The fight isn’t over yet…”

Last year a Plan International delegate to the UN Human Rights Council urged that children and adolescents in the third world should receive “comprehensive sexual education…as part of the school curriculum” to advance the goal of achieving “reproductive health”.

Plan International failed to reply to two letters from United for Life in 2005 asking the organization to “oppose the killing of children by abortion, contraception, human embryo experimentation, IVF, human cloning, and related activities.”

“This raised the question of Plan International's commitment to implementing in full the UDHRs [Universal Declaration of Human Rights] and the Declaration on the Rights of the Child in regard to the unborn,” the group stated.

Girl Guides part of a larger organization championing ‘reproductive health’

Girl Guides of Canada is a member of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS), an international organization that has as part of its mandate to “promote access to education and information about sexual and reproductive health.”

“Reproductive health” is a common theme on WAGGGS’ website.

“The World Association’s way of working enables girls and young women to talk openly about issues such as sexual and reproductive health among their peers and in a safe environment,” WAGGGS says about “prevent[ing] adolescent pregnancy,” its third of seven “key messages” to girls worldwide.

In 2010 WAGGGS boasted that it had sent a young female delegate to advocate for “accessible, affordable and safe abortions” at the 54th session of the Commission on the Status of Women at the United Nations headquarters in New York City.

WAGGGS has partnered with UN agencies such as UNFPA, UNICEF, and UNAIDS, all known for promoting abortion, comprehensive sexuality education, and ‘sexual rights’.

‘Betraying’ Canadian girls

Alissa Golob of Campaign Life Coalition Youth told LifeSiteNews.com that Girl Guides has “betrayed” girls across the country by “partnering with and supporting organizations that promote the exploitation of women and girls by means of contraception and abortion.”

“Contraception strips a girl of one of her greatest and most precious gifts — her fertility. It teaches her to value herself in terms of sexual availability. Is it really ‘pro-woman’ for girls to be taught to be objectified like that?”

“Girl Guides should instead be teaching girls to embrace their fertility, not reject it,” she said.

Gwen Landolt, national vice-president of REAL Women of Canada, called the Girl Guide link to contraception and abortion “appalling."

“Instead of teaching young women to be the leaders of tomorrow, Girl Guides is teaching them to be the sex-objects of tomorrow,” she told LifeSiteNews.com.

Landolt, who belonged to the Girl Guides as a little girl, wondered, “Who’s guiding the Guides?”

“They seem to have lost their way in everything that Girl Guides is supposed to be about — building character and being future citizens.”

Landolt criticized the Girl Guides for jumping on a “secular bandwagon” that she said transforms girls into “sexual objects” instead of “women of merit and character.”

“What’s the purpose of Girl Guides now, to become a sexual object and learn how to have sex?”

“No rational parent would want their daughter to be involved in that clutch of misleading tenets,” she said. “I wouldn’t want my daughter or granddaughter anywhere near that organization.”

The news comes at a time when Girl Scouts USA is facing increasing scrutiny for its pro-abortion and anti-family actions and policies and multi-faceted ties to the ‘reproductive rights’ agenda.

Girl Guides of Canada did not respond to LifeSiteNews.com’s questions by press time asking what a scouting organization is doing pushing contraception and abortion on its girls.

Contact:

Sharron Callahan, Girl Guides Canada Chief Commissioner
[email protected]

Girl Guides Canada National Office
Girl Guides of Canada-Guides du Canada
50 Merton Street
Toronto, Ontario M4S 1A3
Phone: (416) 487-5281
Use online email form here.

Only 7 days left!

Support pro-life news. Help us reach our critical spring fundraising goal by April 1!


Advertisement
Featured Image
Credit: John-Henry Westen, LifeSiteNews
John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry

, ,

Vatican’s doctrine chief: ‘Absolutely anti-Catholic’ to let bishops conferences decide doctrine or discipline

John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry
By John-Henry Westen

VATICAN, March 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has rejected outright the idea floated by Germany’s Cardinal Reinhard Marx that various bishops’ conferences around the world would decide for themselves on points of discipline or doctrine. 

“This is an absolutely anti-Catholic idea that does not respect the catholicity of the Church,” Cardinal Müller told France’s Famille Chrétienne in an interview published today

The question was raised because Cardinal Marx, the head of the German Catholic bishops’ conference and a member of Pope Francis’ advisory Council of Nine, told reporters that the German bishops would chart their own course on the question of allowing Communion for those in “irregular” sexual unions.

“We are not a subsidiary of Rome,” he said in February. “The Synod cannot prescribe in detail what we should do in Germany.”

Vatican Cardinal Müller remarked that while episcopal conferences may have authority over certain issues they are not a parallel magisterium apart from the pope or outside communion with the bishops united to him.

Asked specifically about Cardinal Marx saying that the Church in Germany is “not a subsidiary of Rome,” the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said pointedly “the president of an Episcopal Conference is nothing more than a technical moderator, and as such has no special teaching authority.”  He added moreover, that the dioceses in a particular country “are not subsidiaries of the secretariat of an Episcopal conference or diocese whose Bishop presides over the Episcopal Conference.”

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

The CDF head warned that “this attitude makes the risk of waking some polarization between the local churches and the universal Church.” He did not however believe that there was the will for Episcopal conferences to separate from Rome.

The important interview also saw Cardinal Müller contest the notion that the pastoral practice or discipline could change while retaining the same doctrine. “We can not affirm the doctrine and initiate a practice that is contrary to the doctrine,” he said.

He added that not even the papal Magisterium is free to change doctrine. “Every word of God is entrusted to the Church, but it is not superior to the Word,” he said. “The Magisterium is not superior to the word of God. The reverse is true.”

Cardinal Müller rejected the notion that we would have to modify Christ’s unflinching words totally forbidding divorce and remarriage.  We cannot “say that our ministry should be more cautious than Jesus Christ Himself!”  Nor could we, he added, say that Christ’s teaching is out of date or that “we need to correct or refine Jesus Christ because He lived in an idealistic world.” 

Rather, the cardinal said, bishops must be ready for martyrdom.  Quoting Jesus he said, “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and if we speak all kinds of evil against you because of me.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

‘Groundbreaking’: Kansas may become first state to ban dismemberment abortions

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

TOPEKA, KS, March 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Kansas will become the first state in the country to ban a procedure in which unborn children are dismembered in the womb, if Gov. Sam Brownback signs a bill that recently passed the state legislature.

The state House passed a ban on dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortions, called dismemberment abortions in common parlance, by 98-26 on Wednesday.

The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, which had already passed the state Senate in February 31-9, now heads to Gov. Brownback's desk.

Brownback, a staunch defender of life, is expected to sign the act into law.

"Because of the Kansas legislature's strong pro-life convictions, unborn children in the state will be protected from brutal dismemberment abortions," said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee, which has made banning dismemberment abortions a national legislative focus.

The procedure, in which an abortionist separates the unborn child's limbs from his body one at a time, accounts for 600 abortions statewide every year.

Nationally, it is “the most prevalent method of second-trimester pregnancy termination in the USA, accounting for 96 percent of all second trimester abortions,” according to the National Abortion Federation Abortion Training Textbook.

“It’s just unconscionable that something happens to children that we wouldn’t tolerate being done to pets,” Katie Ostrowski, the legislative director of Kansans for Life, told The Wichita Eagle.

Leading pro-life advocacy groups have made shifting the debate to dismemberment a national priority, with similar legislation being considered in Missouri and Oklahoma. Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., who is NRLC's director of state legislation, called the bill's passage in Topeka “groundbreaking.”

"When the national debate focuses only on the mother, it is forgetting someone," she said.

The abortion lobby has made clear that it is uncomfortable engaging in a public relations tussle on this ground.

Elizabeth Nash, the senior state issues associate of the Guttmacher Institute, said that dismemberment is “not medical language, so it’s a little bit difficult to figure out what the language would do.”

On the state Senate floor, Democrats tried to alter the bill's language on the floor by replacing the term “unborn child” with fetus. “I know some of you don’t believe in science. But it’s not an unborn child, it’s called a fetus,” said state Senator David Haley, D-Kansas City.

If the bill becomes law, the abortion industry has vowed to fight on.

Julie Burkhart, a former associate of late-term abortionist George Tiller, said the motion's only intention is “to intimidate, threaten and criminalize doctors.”

“Policymakers should be ashamed,” she said, adding, “if passed, we will challenge it in court.”

Gov. Brownback has previously signed conscience rights protections and sweeping pro-life protections into law.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ryan Rodrick Beiler / Shutterstock.com
Anne Hendershott

,

How NOT to move beyond the abortion wars

Anne Hendershott
By Anne Hendershott

March 26, 2015 (CrisisMagazine.com) -- A few years ago, when an undergraduate student research assistant of mine—a recent convert to Catholicism—told me that he was planning to meet with a well-known dissenting Catholic theology professor who was then ensconced in an endowed chair at a major metropolitan Catholic university, I told him: “Be careful, you might end up liking him too much.” I jokingly told my student not to make eye contact with the theologian because he might begin to find himself agreeing with him that Catholic teachings “really allow” for women’s ordination and full reproductive rights—including access to abortion.

I was reminded of that conversation this week when I began reading a new book by yet another engaging Catholic theology professor at a major metropolitan university who also claims (pg 6) that the argument he puts forward in his book, Beyond the Abortion Wars, is “consistent with defined Catholic doctrine.” Written by Charles Camosy, associate professor of theology at Fordham University, the new book purports to be in line with Catholic teachings and promises “a way forward for a new generation.” But, Camosy delivers yet another argument for a woman’s right to choose abortion when confronted with an unborn child that he has described—in the past—as an “innocent aggressor.”

Indeed, Camosy has spent much of his career trying to convince us that he knows Catholic teachings better than the bishops. Criticizing Bishop Olmsted for his intervention and excommunication of a hospital administrator for her role in the direct abortion at a Phoenix Catholic hospital, Camosy suggested in 2013 that “the infamous Phoenix abortion case set us back in this regard.” Implying that Bishop Olmsted was not smart enough to understand the moral theology involved in the case, Camosy claimed that “The moral theology in the case was complex—which makes the decision to declare publicly that Sr. McBride had excommunicated herself even more inexplicable. The Church can do better.” For Camosy, “Catholics must be ready to help shape our new discussion on abortion. And we must do so in a way that draws people into the conversation—not only with respectful listening, but speaking in a way that is both coherent and sensitive.”

This new book is likely Camosy’s attempt to “draw people into the conversation.” But, there is little in his book that is either coherent or sensitive. Claiming to want to move “beyond” the abortion wars, Camosy creates an argument that seems designed to offend the pro-life side, while giving great respect to those who want to make sure abortion remains legal.

Especially offensive for pro-life readers will be Camosy’s description of the abortifacient, RU-486 as a form of “indirect abortion.” The reality is that RU-486, commonly known as the “abortion pill,” effectively ends an early pregnancy (up to 8 weeks) by turning off the pregnancy hormone (progesterone). Progesterone is necessary to maintain the pregnancy and when it is made inoperative, the fetus is aborted. For Camosy, who claims that his book is “consistent with settled Catholic doctrine,” this is not a “direct” abortion. To illustrate this, Camosy enlists philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson’s 1971 “Defense of Abortion”—the hypothetical story of the young woman who is kidnapped and wakes up in a hospital bed to find that her healthy circulatory system has been hooked up to a famous unconscious violinist who has a fatal kidney ailment. The woman’s body is being used to keep the violinist alive until a “cure” for the violinist can be found. Camosy makes the case—as hundreds of thousands of pro-choice proponents have made in the past four decades—that one cannot be guilty of directly killing the violinist if one simply disconnects oneself from him. Likewise, for Camosy, simply taking the drug RU 486 is not “directly” killing the fetus. He writes:

The drugs present in RU 486 do not by their very nature appear to attack the fetus. Instead, the drug cuts off the pregnancy hormone and the fetus is detached from the woman’s body…. Using RU 486 is like removing yourself from [Judith Jarvis Thompson’s] violinist once you are attached. You don’t aim at his death, but instead remove yourself because you don’t think you have the duty to support his life with your body…. Some abortions are indirect and better understood as refusals to aid (pp 82-83).

Perhaps there are some readers who will find Camosy’s argument convincing, but I am not sure that many faithful Catholic readers will agree that it is consistent with settled Catholic doctrine.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

As one who is hardly a bystander in the abortion wars, I wanted to like this book. As an incrementalist who celebrates every small step in creating policy to protect the unborn, I had high hopes that this book would at last begin to bridge the divide. A decade ago, in my own book, The Politics of Abortion, I joined the argument begun by writers like Marvin Olasky in his Abortion Rites: A Social History of Abortion in America, that it is more effective to attempt to change the hearts and minds of people than to create divisive public policy at the federal level. I share Charles Camosy’s desire to end the abortion wars—but this war cannot end until the real war on the unborn ends. This does not mean that the two sides cannot work together—battling it out at the state level—where there is the opportunity for the greatest success. But, complex philosophical arguments on whether RU 486 is a direct or indirect form of abortion are not helpful to these conversations.

Camosy must know that we can never really “end” the abortion wars as long as unborn children are still viewed as “aggressors” or “invaders” and can still be legally aborted. Faithful Catholics know that there is no middle ground on this—the pro-life side has to prevail in any war on the unborn. It can be done incrementally but ground has to be gained—not ceded—for the pro-life side. Besides, Camosy seems a bit late to the battlefield to begin with. In many ways, he seems to have missed the fact that the pro-life side is already winning many of the battles through waiting periods, ultrasound and parental notification requirements, and restrictions on late term abortion at the state level. More than 300 policies to protect the unborn have been passed at the state level just in the past few years. The number of abortions each year has fallen to pre-Roe era levels—the lowest in more than four decade.   Much of these gains are due to the selfless efforts of the pro-life community and their religious leaders. Yet, just as victory appears possible in many more states, Camosy seems to want to surrender by resurrecting the tired rhetoric—and the unconscious violinists—of forty years ago.

While it is disappointing, it is not unexpected considering Camosy’s last book lauded the contributions of Princeton’s most notorious professor, Peter Singer—the proponent of abortion, euthanasia and infanticide. Claiming that Singer is “motivated by an admirable desire to respond to the suffering of human and non-human animals,” Camosy’s 2012 book, Peter Singer and Christian Ethics: Beyond Polarization, argues that, “Though Singer is pro-choice for infanticide, on all the numerous and complicated issues related to abortion but one, Singer sounds an awful lot like Pope John Paul II.”  In a post at New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, a progressive organization led by Rev. Richard Cizik (a former lobbyist for the National Association of Evangelicals who was removed from his position because of his public support for same sex unions, and his softening stance on abortion) Camosy wrote that he found Singer to be “friendly and compassionate.”  Camosy currently serves on the Advisory Board of Cizik’s New Evangelical Partnership—where he has posted Peter Singer-like articles including: “Why Christians Should Support Rationing Health Care.”

One cannot know the motivations of another—we can never know what is in another’s heart so it is difficult to know why Charles Camosy wrote this book. It must be difficult to be a pro-life professor at Fordham University—a school known for dissenting theologians like Elizabeth Johnson. But, if one truly wants to advance a culture of life in which all children are welcomed into the world, it would seem that inviting Peter Singer to be an honored speaker to students at Fordham in 2012 is not the way to do it, nor would claiming that RU-486 “may not aim at death by intention.” Perhaps it is unwise to continue to critically review Camosy’s work from a Catholic perspective because it gives such statements credibility—and notoriety. But, as long as Camosy continues to claim that his writings and policy suggestions—including his newly proposed “Mother and Prenatal Child Protection Act”—are “consistent with defined Catholic doctrine,” faithful Catholics will have to continue to denounce them.

Reprinted with permission from Crisis Magazine. 

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook