John Jalsevac

Opinion

The great Girl Scouts cookie debate: should we give Girl Scouts a second chance?

John Jalsevac
Image

January 18, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Cathy Ruse’s article yesterday urging pro-life and pro-family advocates not to buy Girl Scouts of America (GSA) cookies, both because of the organization’s ties to Planned Parenthood and an overall “progressive” agenda, has ignited quite the debate. Not only is the article LifeSiteNews’ most read article of the week, it has also drawn an enormous amount of commentary, both supportive and critical.

Lots of readers agree that GSA’s ties to Planned Parenthood disqualify its cookie initiative from receiving support, while others argue it’s unfair to tar the whole organization with the actions of some GSA bureaucrats and councils, pointing out that the pro-abortion activism doesn’t necessarily (and often doesn’t) filter down to many of the individual troops, which still do a lot of good. One impassioned reader wrote:

I am a Girl Scout leader and I can attest to the fact that I have never heard of any comments about pro-choice or abortion rights from my council or anyone else in the organization and this is certainly not talked about with the girls. We are an all volunteer organization and there are some people that have made mistakes with certain topics, but we are not all that way and certainly do not all support abortion.

The first thing worth noting is that Cathy didn’t say Girl Scouts should get no support at all, but confined her remarks to the cookie sale, pointing out that most of the funds don’t even go to the local troop (troops receive as little as 10% of the profit). Instead, they fund Girl Scout councils or the head office, where the problems originate. 

Hence the question that immediately occurred to me after reading Cathy’s article was, would it be all right to directly support your local girl scout troop, in lieu of buying cookies?

But the whole thing might remind some of the “fungibility” problem we see in the Planned Parenthood tax-funding debate: even though they are technically forbidden from using our money for the objectionable stuff (i.e. abortions), any support at all means we’re freeing up money for the organization to do those things we disagree with. Some might say this is what funding any part of GSA amounts to as well.

However, I’m not sure I buy that, since Girl Scouts isn’t a business the way Planned Parenthood is: it’s an organization with largely autonomous troops, with the character of the individual troops largely determined by volunteer troop leaders and the girls in the troop. The direct financial relationship between the cookies initiative and the GSA hierarchy is obvious: but I see no such relationship when giving money to a local troop. Will such money end up at the head office, and ultimately at Planned Parenthood? It seems unlikely.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

In fact, to me there might be a valid argument that getting involved with and supporting your local Girl Scout troop is a good way to protect it from some of the nonsense coming from head office. Of course, if you know that the leadership of your local troop is already taking its cues on social issues from head office, then it might be better not to support that troop, and to support an alternative, unless it looks like there is some hope for change in the troop.

My fear is that in this case the “spotlight fallacy” may be at work: that is, we may be judging the whole organization based upon a few high-profile instances of pro-abortion activism by a small, if powerful, segment of the organization. But just because the GSA leadership is promoting abortion rights at the UN doesn’t mean that your local troop has in any way contributed to that initiative. 

Hence, the question seems to come down to just how systemic the rot in GSA is. Is it so widespread that the whole organization is compromised, or is it contained enough that we can work in good conscience with the good sections, ensuring that no anti-life rot enters into them, and perhaps pushing the rot further back?

A 2004 survey conducted by STOPP International gives us some information on this question. That survey found that around 25% of councils who responded to the survey said they were partnering with Planned Parenthood in some way. That’s a considerable number. However, only 65 out of 249 councils responded to the survey, leaving the vast majority of them unaccounted for. And keep in mind that these are councils rather than individual troops, which are even more numerous. 

Personally, I would like to see more information before I make up my mind about GSA. I absolutely condemn the anti-life actions that have been performed in GSA’s name by its members, and I condemn any partnership of any kind with Planned Parenthood, but I must ask, is there still some way that we can in good conscience support GSA, or is it beyond hope?

What do you think?

Some links with more info about Girl Scouts’ anti-life activism:

100 Questions for Girl Scouts

As noted in the Girl Scouts and Pro-Abortion WAGGGS section, GSUSA also supports abortion rights through their membership in, substantial funding of, and close relationship with the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS), which aggressively promotes accessible, affordable and safe abortions.

Girl Scouts partner with Planned Parenthood:

On March 5th [2004] Kathy Cloninger, CEO of the Girl Scouts of America, appeared on NBC’s “Today” show to discuss the boycott.  … Cloninger explained that Girl Scouts of America addresses the challenges girls face in today’s world, including issues regarding sexuality and body image.  She then added, “We partner with many organizations.  We have relationships with our church communities, with YWCAs, and with Planned Parenthood organizations across the country, to bring information-based sex education programs to girls.”

 



Advertisement
Featured Image
A photo of Kim Tucci at 25 weeks gestation Erin Elizabeth Photography
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

News,

‘Little miracles’: Mom gives birth to naturally-conceived quintuplets after refusing ‘selective reduction’

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
Image
An ultrasound of the five different compartments, each with its own baby, inside Kim's womb.

AUSTRALIA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A 26-year-old Australian mom has given birth to five healthy babies, all conceived naturally, after refusing the doctor’s advice that she must abort three of them in order to give the remaining two a better chance at life. 

“After my initial ultrasound I was told I could consider the selection method to give 2 babies the best chance in life,” wrote mom Kim Tucci in a Facebook post last September. 

“I watched a YouTube video on the procedure and I cried. I could never do that! Was I selfish for not giving two the chance of 100% survival? All I knew is that I already love them and that every heart beat I heard I connect with them more. For me life starts when a heart starts beating and all I know for sure is that I will do whatever it takes to bring them into this world healthy,” she wrote. 

Last Thursday Kim and her husband Vaughn welcomed the five new members into their family — one boy and four girls —increasing the number of their children from 3 to 8. The babies were born at 30 weeks, 10 weeks early, due to insufficient space in Kim’s womb. They weighed on average about 2.5 pounds. 

The quintuplets’ story began last March, after Kim and Vaughn had been trying for six months to conceive just one more child for their family. Due to health complications, Kim wondered if she would ever become a mother again. 

After what she thought was an extra long cycle, she decided to take a pregnancy test. 

“I was feeling tired and a little nauseated and thought I would take a pregnancy test just to get the ‘what if’ out of my head. To my shock and utter excitement it was positive,” she wrote on a Facebook post.

The parents got the shock of their lives when doctors confirmed in an ultrasound examination that there was not one baby, but five. 

“After a long wait for the ultrasound we finally went in. The sonographer told me there were multiple gestational sacks, but she could only see a heart beat in two. I was so excited! Twins!”

“I was moved to another machine for a clearer view and had the head doctor come in and double check the findings. She started to count, one, two, three, four, five. Did i hear that correctly? Five? My legs start to shake uncontrollably and all i can do is laugh. The sonographer then told me the term for five is ‘quintuplets,’” Kim wrote.

Even though Kim began to feel stretched to the limit with all those human lives growing inside her, she chose to focus on her babies, and not herself, referring to them as “my five little miracles.” 

“It's getting harder as each day passes to push through the pain, every part of my body aches and sleeping is becoming very painful. No amount of pillows are helping support my back and belly. Sometimes I get so upset that I just want to throw my hands up and give in.”

“Sometimes my pelvis becomes so stiff I can barely walk and my hips feel like they are grinding away constantly. I'm finding it hard to eat as I basically have no room left in my stomach, and the way it is positioned it's pushed all the way back with the babies leaning against it.” 

“My skin on my belly is so stretched its painful and hot to touch. It literally feels like I have hives! No amount of cream helps relieve the discomfort. I have a lot of stretch marks now. Dealing with such a huge change in my body is hard.” 

“Is it all worth it? Yes!!!! I will keep pushing through,” she wrote in one Facebook post days before the babies were born. 

The newborns' names are Keith, Ali, Penelope, Tiffany, and Beatrix. They were born at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Subiaco, Western Australia. Mother and babies are reported to be doing well. 



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Jordanian Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein, the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights UN Photo/Paulo Filgueiras
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

News

UN rights chief tells Catholic countries to legalize abortion over Zika virus: bishops and cardinal react

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

GENEVA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- The United Nations, following the lead of international abortion activists, is now urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects, including having smaller than normal heads. 

The UN human rights office said today that it is not enough for South American countries to urge women to postpone pregnancy without also offering them abortion as a final solution. 

“How can they ask these women not to become pregnant, but not offer… the possibility to stop their pregnancies?” UN spokeswoman Cecile Pouilly told reporters. 

UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said that governments should make available contraception and abortion services.

“Laws and policies that restrict (women’s) access to these services must be urgently reviewed in line with human rights obligations in order to ensure the right to health for all in practice,” he said.

But Brazil’s bishops strongly asserted yesterday that efforts should be made to eradicate the virus, not the people who may be infected by it. 

The disease is “no justification whatsoever to promote abortion,” they said in a statement, adding that it is not morally acceptable to promote abortion “in the cases of microcephaly, as, unfortunately, some groups are proposing to the Supreme Federal Court, in a total lack of respect for the gift of life.”

Honduras Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has also come out strongly against the notion of “therapeutic abortions” as a response to the problem. Unlike Brazil where abortion is legal in the case of rape or health of the mother, abortion remains entirely illegal in Honduras.

“We should never talk about ‘therapeutic’ abortion,” the cardinal said in a homily at a February 3 Mass in Suyap. “Therapeutic abortion doesn’t exist. Therapeutic means curing, and abortion cures nothing. It takes innocent lives,” he said. 

While the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an international public health emergency February 1 on account of concerns over the virus, critics have pointed out, however, that not one death as resulted from the virus. Even on WHO’s own website the virus is described in mild terms. 

“It causes mild fever and rash. Other symptoms include muscle pain, joint pain, headache, pain behind the eyes and conjunctivitis. Zika virus disease is usually mild, with symptoms lasting only a few days,” the website states. “To date, there have been no reported deaths associated with Zika virus,” it added. 

Critics suspect that the crisis is being manipulated to advance an anti-human agenda on the pre-born. 

“Is Zika, actually, a hideous virus that threatens to spread uncontrollably across the world creating an army of disabled children with tiny heads and low IQ’s? Or might this be a willful misinterpretation of the scarce data to manipulate public opinion and legislatures?” wrote pro-life critic Mei-Li Garcia earlier this week.

“It becomes very clear that the publicity surrounding this story has a very little to do with medicine and a lot to do with a convenient crisis that is being used by those pushing for the legalization of abortion around the world,” she wrote.



Share this article

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

News,

Hillary’s litmus test for Supreme Court picks: They must ‘preserve Roe v. Wade’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

DERRY, NH, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Hillary Clinton has a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees - several, in fact. At a Democratic event on Wednesday, Clinton unveiled her criteria in selecting a judge for the nation's highest court.

“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests," she said.

"We’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe v. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she said.

There have been over 58,000,000 abortions since the 1973 court ruling legalizing abortion in all 50 states, according to National Right to Life.

That echoes her recent call to arms speech before Planned Parenthood last month, when she stated that taxpayers must fund abortion-on-demand in order to uphold the "right" of choice.

“We have to preserve marriage equality,” Clinton said, referring to last summer's Obergefell v. Hodges case, a 5-4 ruling that redefined marriage nationwide. “We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community."

Her views differentiate her from the Republican front runners. Ted Cruz has called the court's marriage ruling "fundamentally illegitimate," and Donald Trump told Fox News Sunday this week that he would "be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things." Marco Rubio has said he won't "concede" the issue to the one-vote majority.

All Republican presidential hopefuls say they are pro-life and will defund Planned Parenthood.

Her husband, Bill Clinton, raised the makeup of the Supreme Court early last month in New Hampshire, saying it receives "almost no attention" as a campaign issue.

On Wednesday, Hillary said "the next president could get as many as three appointments. It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”

Clinton said her judicial appointees must also reverse the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance and oppose a recent decision striking down a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, justices struck down Section 4(b) of the act, which said that certain states and jurisdictions had to obtain permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.

At one time, most politicians frowned upon any "litmus test" for judicial nominees, emphasizing the independence of the third branch of government. "I don't believe in litmus tests," Jeb Bush told Chuck Todd last November.

But with the rise of an activist judiciary in the middle of the 20th century, constitutionalists have sought to rein in the power of the bench.



Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook