More Dubious Connections to the Girl Scouts

Picture shared by Abby Johnson via Facebook.

The connections between the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood (the largest abortion provider in the US) isn’t the only connection for concern.

Here’s another one: they support legalized prostitution. Follow the trail, if you will. Your local troop sends money to its council, the councils send money to Girl Scouts USA (GSUSA). Not only does GSUSA receive money directly in this manner, it also receives royalties on every box of cookies sold. In turn, GSUSA is a member of, and one of the biggest supporters of, the World Association of Girl Groups and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS), which helped draft the Bali Global Youth Forum Declaration demanding governments to legalize prostitution.

It won’t help to say that you didn’t support the Bali Global Youth Forum Declaration because you did. By buying cookies and supporting the Girl Scouts, you enabled WAGGGS to promote an agenda that hurts girls and treats them as nothing more than sexual objects to be used and discarded. Considering the problems we have with global sex trafficking, everyone ought to be concerned with what the Girl Scouts promote. In case you think sex trafficking is a far removed problem, read this article about how the FBI rescued 16 girls (some as young as 13 years old) from sex traffickers during Super Bowl weekend.

In other news, I received an email last week from Lila Rose, president of Live Action, stating that she is joining the boycott of Girl Scouts cookies along with other pro-life organizations. See her letter to supporters asking them to join CookieCott as well. Rose also shared a link to a 2011 video where she interviews Tess and Sydney, two ex-girlscouts who are trying to share the message of how Girl Scouts USA promotes abortion and Planned Parenthood.

And one last item to share with you today has to do with Planned Parenthood (PP). In case you’re still not convinced that PP’s goals don’t mix with the Girl Scout’s goal of the betterment of girls, take a look at how PP uses burlesque shows as fundraisers. From Saynsumthn’s Blog:

Welcome once again the bizarre and sexually charged when raising money for abortion giant Planned Parenthood.

The February 7, 2014, “Legislate This” fundraiser was started in 2012 by Ginger Snaps in Austin, TX.

Legislate This PP N TX1502349_10202541406592736_1707684321_o

Legislate This! is a burlesque show fundraising event benefiting Planned Parenthood. This event is described as, “a reaction to the ever growing frustration of living in a state governed by Dick Perry.”

According to organizers, this production is an annual event which brings together the burlesque community to show their support for Planned Parenthood. All proceeds from Legislate This! are donated directly to that show’s local PP chapter.

Read the entire post from Saynsumthn’s Blog by clicking here.

Maybe it’s just me, but…the time has come to join CookieCott and tell the Girl Scouts that they don’t represent your values. Then maybe they’ll listen and stop associating with organizations that seek to objectify girls and women as sex toys.

Time to Stop Buying Girl Scouts Cookies

I’ve written often about the ties between the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood (see What are the Girl Scouts Supporting?; The Girl Scouts Deny the Allegations; If it Seems Like I’m Picking on the Girl Scouts…; The Girl Scouts and Their Ungodly Agenda), but now events have finally brought some national attention to the organization.

So let’s recap what happened in order to bring you up to current events. In June 2013, Wendy Davis, a Texas state senator, filibustered a session of the senate while it was trying to pass pro-life legislation that would require, in part, abortion clinics in Texas be classified as ambulatory surgical centers (which they are) and thus have to follow the rules and regulations that all ambulatory surgical centers in Texas have to follow (which they didn’t have to at the time). Davis, strongly supported by Planned Parenthood (see this and this), filibustered so that this bill could not be voted upon and thus would die.

Since then, Davis, as well as members of her campaign staff and some of her supporters, have been repeatedly overheard or recorded mocking one of her opponents in the Texas gubernatorial race who happens to be a paraplegic. So what does all this have to do with the Girl Scouts? Well, the national headquarters of the Girl Scouts organization tweeted its belief that Davis should be named the Woman of the Year as someone the girls in the Girl Scouts should emulate.

Soon after that little brouhaha, it was discovered that the new Girl Scouts spokeswoman used to work for a pro-abortion group. Because of all these reasons stated above and in my previous blogs, my wife and I made the decision a few years ago to stop supporting the Girl Scouts by not buying cookies or participating in other fundraisers. We’ve also been informing all our family and friends who have their daughters in the Girl Scouts to stop supporting an organization that works with the largest abortion provider in the US. Even if the local troop doesn’t directly support the activities of the national organization, just by being a part of that organization gives it legitimacy and influence. You can find out what you Girl Scouts council supports by going to

Now there are national pro-life organizations which are calling for a boycott of Girl Scout cookies and many reasons are cited but the primary one is the organization’s continued support of abortion. Check out the reasons for the boycott by visiting the CookieCott 2014 website and see if any of the reasons resonate with you.

Yes, by all means boycott the cookies, but better yet, stop supporting them completely by pulling your daughters and granddaughters our of the Girl Scouts. A Christ-centered alternative is the American Heritage Girls (see An Alternative to the Girl Scouts).

Supreme Emergency

I’ve been reading Moral Philosophy: A Reader, 4th edition (edited by Louis P. Pojman and Peter Tramel) and found it to be very interesting, enough so that I’ve actually said to people, “I’m enjoying studying philosophy.” One essay caught my attention because of my interests in history and ethics. I have always been a World War II buff and the last part of this book (Applied Ethics) contains three essays regarding that period of time and the morality of bombing civilian population areas. In reading the selections on this topic, I found parallels in the abortion debate that should make us stop and think.

The essay that really caught my attention was an excerpt from Just and Unjust Wars by Michael Walzer. In a war, one of the conventions modern nations attempt to keep is that combatants fight with other combatants and that civilians should not be targeted. Yet, there are times, called supreme emergencies by Walzer, where it is justifiable to break those conventions. So what defines a supreme emergency? Walzer states:

It is defined by two criteria, which correspond to the two levels on which the concept of necessity works: the first has to do with the imminence of the danger and the second with its nature. The two criteria must both be applied. Neither one by itself is sufficient as an account of extremity or as a defense of the extraordinary measures extremity is thought to require. Close but not serious, serious but not close–neither one makes for a supreme emergency. (Pojman and Tramel, 450)

And that’s exactly what the pro-aborts do: create a situation in the minds of abortion-vulnerable women so that they feel they are in a position of close and serious danger. They tell women: you’ll never finish high school or college; your career is in danger; there’s no way you can handle another child in addition to the ones you already have; you were expecting to have one child not twins; you’re going to have too many challenges while raising a child with a mental or physical disability; you will be reminding of being raped every day you look at that child. By playing on the fear that the women may already have, rather than counseling them and supporting them, pro-aborts have created a sense of supreme emergency.

Although most Americans think about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when thinking about the bombing of civilians during WWII, the fact is the Nazis did it extensively to England and the Soviet Union; and in retaliation, the British did it extensively to Germany and German-held territories. The British justified it by saying “tactical use of bombers [against military targets] could not stop Hitler and that the destruction of cities could” and “the bombers alone…provide the means of victory.” (455)

And that’s exactly what the pro-aborts do: they tell abortion-vulnerable women that the only option they have is to get an abortion. If that wasn’t true, what would explain the fact that although the largest abortion provider in the United States, Planned Parenthood, claims to make adoption referrals, 92 percent of the pregnant women they serve abort their babies? Or that some affiliates have abysmal numbers adoption referrals, in one case, Planned Parenthood of Indiana had only 12 adoptions in 7 years.

The next step is to dehumanize those you are about to act upon. Walzer notes that the Allies did not bomb occupied French civilian areas because they were seen as allies, the Allies had “special commitments to the French,” and the goal was to free the French from Nazi occupation. But the German citizens, though not in control of Nazi policy or the execution of the war, were seen as part of the problem. They were faulted for contributing to the Nazi war effort and therefore were to be punished in addition to the Nazi leadership. Walzer explains that some might have thought that “it makes sense to say that there were more people in German than in French cities who were responsible (in some fashion) for the evil of Nazism, and we may well be reluctant to extend to them the full range of civilian rights.” (456)

And that’s exactly what the pro-aborts do: the original arguments supporting abortion included calling the pre-born baby a mass of cells, a clump of tissue, or a parasite. Now that scientific and medical progress has shown those claims to be false, the pro-aborts now say that the pre-born baby isn’t really a person, it’s just a potential person and that since it needs the continued assistance of another (the mother), then it’s the mother’s rights and desires that are more important than the pre-born baby’s. Can you also hear how these arguments are made to support ending the life of those with disabilities, the terminally ill, or the elderly? The quality of life they have or will have do not meet our definition of what it means to be a person so why shouldn’t we help them end their lives?

Finally, Walzer notes that the British bombings of German cities, after the initial bombings in late 1940, were no longer justified by July 1942 when Winston Churchill stated:

In the days when we were fighting alone, we answered the questions: “How are you going to win the war?” by saying: “We will shatter Germany by bombing.” Since then the enormous injuries inflicted on the German Army and manpower by the Russians, and the accession of the manpower and munitions of the United States, have rendered other possibilities open. (456)

Certainly by 1945 when the Germans Army was in collapse and the war was about to be ended, the continued bombing of civilians was no longer needed, therefore the bombing of Dresden, which killed approximately 100,000 people, was an unjustifiable act.

And that’s exactly what’s still happening today: with the availability of resources available from public and private organizations, women facing unwanted pregnancies are not alone. There are places to turn to, there are people willing to help. Yet 1.2 million abortions in the United States are still performed every year and over 40 million abortions per year occur worldwide. This all happens despite the fact that there is no close and serious threat to be addressed by ending these innocent lives.

Finally, speaking about the innocent civilians in German cities bombed by the Allies during WWII, Walzer writes:

We can recognize their horror only when we have acknowledged the personality and value of the men and women we destroy in committing them [acts we would not normally do]. It is the acknowledgement of rights that puts a stop to such calculations [to justify these acts] and forces us to realize that the destruction of the innocent, whatever its purposes, is a kind of blasphemy against our deepest moral commitments. (457, additional comments are mine)

It’s time to acknowledge the rights of the baby in the womb. It’s time that we speak up for them. And it’s time “to realize that the destruction of the innocent, whatever its purpose, is a kind of blasphemy against our deepest moral commitments.”

What Choice are They For?

Yesterday, January 22, 2013, marked the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade (Roe) Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision which Blog for Choice 2013legalized abortion in every state during all nine months of pregnancy. And today, January 23, 2013, marks the 40th anniversary of a lesser known, but just as important, decision from SCOTUS regarding abortion: Doe v. Bolton (Doe).

Roe was important because in one stoke of the pen, SCOTUS overthrew the states’ right of making their own laws and struck down every law in this land against abortion. To be clear, 17 states had already legalized abortion of some sort prior to that decision, but most of them had restrictions on which trimester those abortions could take place. What Roe did was make it legal to abort a baby any time during the whole nine months of pregnancy if the mother’s health was at risk. But Roe didn’t define what it meant for a mother’s health to be at risk.

Doe took care of that. The day after Roe was handed down, SCOTUS handed down the Doe v. Bolton decision which basically defined the health of the mother as any reason whatsoever. We’re not just talking about mortal danger to the mother, which is what most people that I speak with think it means, Doe defined it to mean any type of physical health issue. So, for example, if a woman doesn’t want to deal with morning sickness, that’s a proper reason (according to Doe) to get an abortion. Additionally, Doe broadened the definition of “health of the mother” to include other types of “health” both of legitimate concern (e.g. mental) and the outrageous (e.g. economic). Whatever the reason, or type of “health” issue, cited there really is no justification for ending the life of an innocent human being.

Ask Them What They Mean When They Say ChoiceWhy this little history lesson? As they have in previous years, NARAL Pro-Choice America encouraged their supporters to “Blog for Choice” on January 22. And pro-life groups and individuals, as they have in previous years, responded by asking what it means when you are for “choice”?

You’ll find that there are a lot of answers to that question. A lot of pro-choice people think it’s about better health care for women (how about better health care for all…seems a little sexist to only advocate better health care for women); or they want you to think it’s about getting free contraceptives; or it’s about empowering women to make decisions about their own bodies.

But the reality is that the folks who are pushing the “choice” agenda–and I don’t mean your friends, relatives, or co-workers who, when asked “Are you pro-life or pro-choice” say they are pro-choice but don’t really know what that means–the ones who take in billions of dollars under the banner of “choice” and pay out millions through their political action committees, know what choice they’re talking about: abortion.

My wife reminded today that Virginia has a specialty license plate called “Trust Women, Respect Choice.” Here in northern Virginia, I often see a car with that plate with a vanity registration: “I HAD 1.” This license plate tells us the truth. I doubt if this person would say “I HAD 1” if she were talking about mammograms at Planned Parenthood (which they don’t do), or free ultrasounds at Planned Parenthood (which they won’t show the results of to the woman considering abortion), or free birth control pills, or free condoms.

So what do they mean when they say choice? The answer is clear: the ending of innocent human life in a barbaric fashion. On this 40th anniversary of two legal decisions which made every American citizen complicit in the sin of murder, I ask that you find the truth behind the rhetoric and then make an informed decision. You can start where I started 16 years ago: by looking at the results of abortions. Be forewarned that the images are graphic and disturbing, but they are real and it happens 3,300 times every day in the US…1.2 million times every year.

If you have been involved in an abortion decision in your past, please know that the purpose of the video is not to condemn you or shame you. The purpose of the video is to help you understand that no matter what the sin, God loves you and has forgiven you through Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Here are three resources for help if you have had an abortion in the past: Word of Hope, Rachel’s Vineyard, and Abortion Recovery International.

Watch the video of aborted babies and strengthen your resolve to end this 40 year atrocity we call “choice.” Click here to see the video.

Updated 24 January 2013.

Gendercide in America

I’ve written about gendercide in China over the years (read about The China Model and Forced Abortion in China), but did you know that Planned Parenthood will tell you how you can do the same here in the US? In fact, in Arizona–where it is illegal to get an abortion based on the gender of the baby–they tell you specifically NOT to tell the abortionist that this is why you want an abortion or else he won’t do it.

You can see the Live Action videos that expose this practice from Texas (Part 1), New York City (Part 2), Arizona (Part 3), Hawaii (Part 4), and North Carolina (Part 5).

Why is it important to know this is happening? Because some pro-aborts suggest that it’s okay to get an abortion for whatever reason you want, including the gender of the baby. From a recent blog on the website, Slate:

Let’s just remember that we are talking about fetuses. No matter how many ultrasound pics get posted to Facebook, these are fetuses with female genitals or male genitals—not little girls and little boys.

Beside the incorrect understanding of biology–if you have female genitals, then you’re a girl; and if you have male genitals, then you’re a boy–the author makes sense in the rest of the article. If pro-aborts hesitate to say that abortion is okay even if it’s based on the baby’s gender, then what other reasons can a pro-lifer offer where it doesn’t make sense that a woman should get an abortion?

For the pro-abort this is a slippery slope the other way, one that will lead to abolishing abortion-on-demand completely. They understand what’s really at stake, so no matter how immoral the reason for getting the abortion, or how sickened you might be to know that people want to kill their babies just because of the baby’s gender, the author of the blog on Slate say, “Gulp for a second if you must, then get over it [emphasis added].”