Tuesday, March 1, 2016

The 6 Ways Homosexual Activists Manipulate Public Opinion

Anyone who is concerned about the influence of the homosexual agenda on reshaping traditional values must become intimately familiar with the major tactics that homophiles commonly employ in order to anticipate them and respond in charity and truth. Homophile strategists are very adept at manipulating public opinion with an arsenal of six tactics that are based upon deceptions and half‑truths:
  • Exploit the “victim” status;
  • Use the sympathetic media;
  • Confuse and neutralize the churches;
  • Slander and stereotype Christians;
  • Bait and switch (hide their true nature); and
  • Intimidation.
One reason these tactics have worked so well is that homophile activists have succeeded in marketing a harmless and friendly image of their movement. They have lulled people into thinking that the wider society will not be adversely affected by their radical social agenda. Homosexual strategists have, in many cases, toned down their extreme rhetoric and have cloaked their agenda in soothing language. Over time, however, many have begun to think of themselves and others as “homophobes” or “haters” if they oppose any aspect of the homosexual rights agenda — or, incredibly, even if they question it in their own minds.
Generals and attorneys often wish that their opponents would write a book. Interestingly, leaders of the “homosexual rights” movement did exactly that. Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen clearly laid out this agenda in the marching orders of the movement, After the Ball:  How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s.[1] This volume is an absolute treasure chest of information for those pro-family stalwarts who are actively engaged against the homosexual rights agenda.
By far the most popular homophile tactic is the claim to victim status, which is a very powerful, almost paralyzing, weapon that gives them a distinct advantage in the public square. Kirk and Madsen summarize the potent effectiveness of the victim status:
In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. … The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable; that is, to jam with shame the self-righteous pride that would ordinarily accompany and reward their antigay belligerence, and to lay groundwork for the process of conversion by helping straights identify with gays and sympathize with their underdog status. … the public should be persuaded that gays are victims of circumstance, that they no more chose their sexual orientation than they did, say, their height, skin color, talents, or limitations. … gays should be portrayed as victims of prejudice.
Does this sound familiar? It does if one pays attention to any mainstream media coverage of these controversial issues as they play out in law and society. But the victim status requires a story to back it up. Thus, perhaps the most common lament of the garden-variety homophile revolves around the alleged “tidal wave of anti-gay” hate crimes.
An analysis of FBI statistics on hate crimes committed against homosexuals during the time period 2000-2008 shows that the probability of any individual homosexual being the victim of a hate crime during his or her entire life span is slightly more than one percent.[2] Interestingly, “gays” are more likely to commit hate crimes against “straights” than “straights” are to commit hate crimes against “gays.” According to the FBI, there are 3.98 hate crimes committed by each million heterosexuals annually against homosexuals, and there are 4.44 hate crimes committed by each million homosexuals annually against heterosexuals.[3]
Image
The Gay Rights movement's  marching orders.
Violence against homosexuals by others gets all the press, but it is interesting to note that the great majority of anti-”gay” violence is committed by other “gays.” The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) is the leading tracker of violence against “gays” in the United States. According to the NCAVP’s statistics on anti-”gay” violence, 83 percent of all violence committed against “gays” is carried out by other “gays” in domestic situations. This does not even count “gay-on-gay” violence committed outside the home.[4]
This confusion is now pervasive in society, and questioning the agenda is simply not to be tolerated – especially among America’s youth.
For example, the classical notion that universities should be “arenas for the free exchange of ideas” has been completely discarded in the United States. More than three-fourths of U.S. colleges and universities now possess codes of conduct that ban behavior and speech based upon, including many other things, “homophobia.” The danger that these codes represent to academic freedom far outweighs their usefulness. This has already been amply demonstrated, as many colleges have severely punished students for merely desiring to debate the topic of homosexuality.
The squashing of dissenting views on homosexuality in the classroom has been going on for decades now. In 1991, a student at the University of Michigan announced his intention to establish a counseling program to help homosexuals leave their lifestyle. He was dragged before a panel of university administrators, unanimously found guilty of “sexual harassment,” and was thrown out of the university.[5] In 2000, the Student Judiciary of Tufts University voted officially to “derecognize” the Tufts Christian Fellowship (TCF) club for taking into account, for purposes of selecting leaders, the beliefs of a member whose views of Scripture and homosexuality were opposed to their own.[6] The TCF was stripped of funding, not permitted to use the Tufts name, not permitted to meet in any room that required a reservation, and not allowed to advertise or announce any of their events or meetings. In 2011, a Fort Worth, Texas high school student was suspended from school for reportedly saying, “I’m a Christian, and I don’t think being gay is right,” during a class discussion.[7] And teachers don’t have it any easier. In 2010 a professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign was accused of “hate speech” and relieved of his teaching duties for teaching Catholic doctrine on homosexuality in his Introduction to Catholicism class.[8]
Political science professor Jean Betheke Elshtain, while highlighting the dangers presented by codes against racism, also points out the difficulties associated with allpunitive codes of this nature: “My hunch is that, over the long haul, the upshot of such endeavors [college speech codes] will not be a purified, racist-free, collective student consciousness, but a simmering backlog of resentment at being labeled as a racist, even if one has never committed a racist act or uttered a racist slur.”[9]
No one should attempt to deny homosexuals their basic human rights; which are the same basic rights that we all have as being sons and daughters of God. But it has gotten to the point where we have to fight to preserve our own basic rights — the rights to free speech, religion, assembly, and teaching our own children our values – in order to protect our own families and institutions.
Those who promote homosexuality are forcibly tearing away more and more of the rights of Christians, and the situation is rapidly deteriorating. Who could have possibly imagined just a few years ago that companies would start firing people for writing pro-family articles on their own time, or business owners would be sued for refusing to participate in homosexual union ceremonies?
Now is the time to draw the line, to stand and defend our families and our rights without apology in the public square.


[1] Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.  After the Ball:  How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s [New York City:  Plume Books], 1989.
[2] Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) annual report entitled “Hate Crime Statistics.”  Table 1, “Incidents, Offenses, Victims, and Known Offenders by Bias Motivation.”  http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm.
[3] Ibid.
[4] The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP).  Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Domestic Violence:  2003 Supplement.
[5] Paul Weyrich.  “Politically Correct Fascism on Our Campuses.”  New Dimensions Magazine, June 1991, page 44.
[6] Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. “Victory At Tufts; Evangelical Christian Group Regains Recognition.” May 16, 2000. http://thefire.org/article/137.html.
[7] “Student’s Homosexuality Comment Leads To Suspension.” CBSDFW.com, September 21, 2011. http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/09/21/students-homosexuality-comments-lead-to-suspension-first-amendment-discussion/.
[8] Adam Cassandra. “University Reinstates Professor Terminated for Teaching Catholic Doctrine on Homosexuality.” CNSNews.com, August 1, 2010. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/university-reinstates-professor-terminated-teaching-catholic-doctrine-homosexuality.
[9] Stephen Goode.  “Efforts to Deal With Diversity Can Go Astray.” Insight Magazine, September 10, 1990, pages 15 to 19.
This article was adapted from its original version in the Spring 2012 issue of FrontLines, the official magazine of Human Life International. You can sign up to receive FrontLines here. Dr. Brian Clowes is the director of education and research at Human Life International (HLI).

May 31, 2012 (HLIWorldWatch.org) -

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Pagans join increasingly diverse pro-life youth movement led by atheists and feminists

An article in which pagans @ North Harris (Lone Star) in Texas, students from Frassati Catholic High School in Texas, and the Pro-life tidal wave are on the same page.
I found the article via my very pro-abortion cousin in Ohio. LOL 
Small world. 
My cousin seemed unaware of the magnitude of the pro-life movement. I guess that pro-aborts are completely out of the loop bc they rely on popular media for their info?
GREAT PIC of Frassati students btw!  Here it is (with link back)


‘I hope that our courage will awaken other fellow pagans to do the right thing’
A movement long dominated by conservative Christian voices is making room for young nonreligious and even pagan voices.
Last month’s events around the annual March for Life, which marks the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, included activism by young pro-life pagans in Texas and secular opponents of abortion nationwide.

Tarquis Stargift Thomas, a nursing student at Lone Star College-North Harris, became a minor pro-life celebrity when the Texas Young Republican Federation tweeted out her photo at the Texas Rally for Life along with a Catholic group. 

The photo of Thomas got picked up by Pro-Life Texas, where Thomas and other pro-life pagans found it. “Science proves we are all created equal in the same matter,” she wrote. “Oh Goddess thank you. I hope that our courage will awaken other fellow pagans to do the right thing and see that abortion truly harms women,” with the hashtag #prolifemovementinclusive.



Her friend Melody Ellen also shared a picture of them at the rally with the Facebook page forPro-Life Pagansfounded in 2011 to “unify pagans who are pro-life, but feel they are alone,” and encourage them to join the broader pro-life movement.
Thomas and Pro-Life Pagans did not respond to interview requests by The College Fix.
Students from religious groups were also amply represented at the Texas Rally for Life.

Secular Pro-Life, founded in 2009 by then-University of Virginia law student Kelsey Hazzard, also participated in March for Life activities. Hazzard and others regularly speak on college campuses, including Nicholls State University in Louisiana this week.
Hazzard wrote a piece for Opposing Views around the Roe anniversary arguing that support for abortion rights is often “influenced by beliefs of a fundamentally supernatural character.”
Mainstream pro-life organizations are increasingly working with the nontraditional groups.
Students for Life works with 930 colleges and high schools across the country, Kristina Hernandez, director of communications, told The Fix in an email. Currently it’s working with Secular Pro-Life and Life Matters Journal, which promotes a “consistent life ethic” and whose leaders are largely recent college graduates.
These partners use nontraditional and non-faith based outreach “to recruit people into the pro-life movement who are oftentimes missed by the more conservative mainstream national pro-life organizations,” said Hernandez.
Students for Life has also worked with Democrats for Life “in the past,” she said.
‘We have to reach out to every community and subculture’
Though Secular Pro-Life doesn’t have “any official connection” with Pro-Life Pagans, Hazzard told The Fix in an email, “I’m sure we have some membership overlap, and we share each other’s Facebook posts from time to time.”
Hazzard cited “one woman who is active in Pagan pro-life work” who is on the advisory board “for an upcoming Secular Pro-Life project to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment,” which cut off federal funding for abortion in most circumstances.
It’s important to work with diverse pro-life groups, because “if we’re going to make abortion unthinkable, we have to reach out to every community and subculture,” she said.
Groups like Pro-Life Pagans “are doing a great job reaching a portion of people who are often overlooked yet need this message just as much as the rest of us,” Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa, the founder and president of New Wave Feminists, told The Fix in an email.
“This is a human rights issue and all humans, no matter their color or creed, should be fighting to free society from the lie that women need abortion to be fully liberated,” she said.
New Wave Feminists participated in the March for Life in Washington.
The group, whose motto is “Badass. Prolife. Feminists,” has spoken at several Students for Life and Pro-Life Texas events.
“New Wave Feminists use humor to deconstruct the pro-abortion ties of the feminist movement,” SFL’s Hernandez said. “They show that true feminism is coming out from under the patriarchal construct of abortion that enslaves women, and that you can do it with a laugh.”

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/26307/
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Samantha Watkins is a broadcast journalism and theatre double major at Point Loma Nazarene University. She is the director of activities and design, editor for the features section of The Point, manager of Coastline News, and is part of Turning Point, a dance ministry on campus. Samantha can also be seen on stage acting at Salomon Theatre.
heart emoticon

Sunday, January 24, 2016

The Early Church on Abortion: 8 Quotes Before AD 400

You shall not kill the child by obtaining an abortion. Nor, again, shall you destroy him after he is born.”
St. Barnabas (“Epistle of St. Barnabas,” c. 70-100 A.D.)

“You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one who has been born.”
“The Didache [The Teaching Of The Twelve Apostles]” (c. 80-140 A.D.)

“Women who were reputed believers began to resort to drugs for producing sterility. They also girded themselves around, so as to expel what was being conceived. For they did not wish to have a child by either slave or by any common fellow – out of concern for their family and their excessive wealth. See what a great impiety the lawless one has advanced! He teaches adultery and murder at the same time!”
St. Hipploytus (“Refutation Of All Heresies,” c. 225 A.D.)

“He [the schismatic Novatian] struck the womb of his wife with his heel and hurried an abortion, thereby causing parricide.”
St. Cyprian of Carthage (“Epistle 52 To Cornelius,” c. 251 A.D.)

“A woman who deliberately destroys a fetus is answerable for murder. And any fine distinction as to its being completely formed or unformed is not admissible amongst us.”
St. Basil the Great (“Epistle 138,” c. 375 A.D.)

“Others drink for sterility and commit murder on the human not yet sown. Some when they sense that they have conceived by sin, consider the poisons for abortion, and frequently die themselves along with it, and go to Hell guilty of three crimes: murdering themselves, committing adultery against Christ, and murder against their unborn child.”
St. Jerome (“Epistle 22,” c. 380 A.D.)

“The rich women, to avoid dividing the inheritance among many, kill their own fetus in the womb and with murderous juices extinguish in the genital chamber their children.”
St. Ambrose (“On the Hexaemeron,” c. 386 A.D.)

“To destroy the fetus ‘is something worse than murder.’ The one who does this ‘does not take away life that has already been born, but prevents it from being born.'”
St. John Chrysostom (“Homilies on Romans,” c. 391 A.D.)

source: http://www.stpeterslist.com/1504/the-early-church-on-abortion-8-quotes-before-ad-400/

Sunday, March 2, 2014

"Pro-Choice" Deny Association w/ "Pro-Abortion"

The interesting thing is, when people advocate other causes, you don't hear them desperately trying to distance themselves from the activity under discussion. People who support capital punishment don't bristle at being called pro-death penalty. People who work for the protection of animals don't become infuriated if you refer to them as pro-animal. Those who support the Second Amendment don't attack you for calling them pro-gun, and the list goes on and on. The only exception to this is people who support abortion. On one hand they will viciously defend its legality while, on the other hand, doing everything humanly possible to deny any association with it.

The message in this is clear. Simply put, even these people realize that abortion is indefensible.

But beyond that, here's the issue I want to raise. Today, about 3500 American babies are going to have their legs torn off, their arms ripped out of the sockets, their chests crushed and their skulls split open. And when the day is over, most of their corpses will either be ground up in garbage disposals and flushed down the sewer system or tossed into dumpsters to be eaten by rats. Then tomorrow, another 3500 victims will be teed up, and the day after that another 3500, and the day after that another 3500, and so on.

What I want to know is this: for those defenseless babies, what is the difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice?

-- Mark Crutcher 

Read the rest:  http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/brown/brown_141distinction.html
 
The interesting thing is, when people advocate other causes, you don't hear them desperately trying to distance themselves from the activity under discussion. 
• People who support capital punishment don't bristle at being called pro-death penalty. 
• People who work for the protection of animals don't become infuriated if you refer to them as pro-animal. 
• Those who support the Second Amendment don't attack you for calling them pro-gun, and the list goes on and on. 
 
The only exception to this is people who support abortion. On one hand they will viciously defend its legality while, on the other hand, doing everything humanly possible to deny any association with it.

The message in this is clear. Simply put, even these people realize that abortion is indefensible.

But beyond that, here's the issue I want to raise. Today, about 3500 American babies are going to have their legs torn off, their arms ripped out of the sockets, their chests crushed and their skulls split open. And when the day is over, most of their corpses will either be ground up in garbage disposals and flushed down the sewer system or tossed into dumpsters to be eaten by rats. Then tomorrow, another 3500 victims will be teed up, and the day after that another 3500, and the day after that another 3500, and so on.

What I want to know is this: for those defenseless babies, what is the difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice?

-- Mark Crutcher

Read the rest: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/brown/brown_141distinction.html
 

PP President Cecile Richards - "When life begins not ‘really relevant’"

The current head of Planned Parenthood knows that based on science that life begins at the moment of conception, but she struggled pathetically trying to avoid this topic during a recent interview . . . .
 
http://www.lifesitenews.com/.../video-planned-parenthood...


Thursday, September 5, 2013

Fetal Pain

September 4, 2013 (NRLC) -

Over the past decade NRL News and NRL News Today have collectively carried dozens and dozens and DOZENS of articles about the topic of the capacity of the unborn child to feel pain. So when colleagues tell you on your return to work of a must-read article, the first temptation might be to expect too little rather than too much. But after reading Eric Schulzke’s “The disputed science of fetal pain,” I can see why they say the article is balanced—a rarity—and comprehensive—even rarer.
Schulzke cleverly works backwards. He starts with newborns who were born premature. Their parents are absolutely convinced their twin sons experienced pain at birth. “The pain markers went well beyond facial cues,” Schulzke writes. “Even routine blood draws or IV insertions could cause measurable reactions.”

And in stark contrast to what prevailed not so long ago, “Anesthesia is now routine for both neonatal and fetal surgery, but a generation ago newborns were thought to not perceive pain, and they routinely underwent surgery without anesthesia.” That would be considered barbaric today.
He interviewed Dr. Ray Paschall about fetal surgery and the use of anesthesia. Dr. Paschall has performed around 260 surgeries on babies before birth and “was part of a team that developed fetal surgery for myelomeningocele, a type of spina bifida, where the spine fails to close correctly, leaving it exposed to corrosive amniotic fluid.”

Schulzke notes that “Pre-birth intervention has been found to significantly improve outcomes. The target age for these surgeries, Paschall said, is between 21 and 25 weeks of gestational age, which happens to be precisely the age targeted in fetal pain abortion legislation.” He “firmly believes” they feel pain.

You can read this fascinating account in its entirety so let me summarize some of what the story accomplishes.

It takes on the principle arguments against the idea that the unborn child can feel pain beginning at 20 weeks fetal age (equivalent to “22 weeks of pregnancy”). For starters, Paschall is deeply skeptical of those who argue that “the unborn fetus is immersed in a mix of fluids that chemically induce sleep, meaning that even if the brain wiring were in place, the fetus will still be oblivious.”
We have discussed this absurd contention at much greater length elsewhere. (See “Royal College of Ob-GYN ‘Fetal Awareness’ Report Does Nothing to Rebut Conclusion Unborn Can Experience Pain at 20 Weeks.”)

He also helpfully juxtaposes the work of Dr. Kawaljeet Anand, who affirms the reality of fetal pain, and a 2005 co-authored article published in Journal of the American Medical Association. Anand’s research is head and shoulders more persuasive, beginning with a landmark 1987 article in the New England Journal of Medicine in which “Anand proved that newborns not only perceived pain,” Schulzke writes, “but that they were literally dying from it.”

Schulzke adds, “In one of his studies, mortality dropped from 25 to 10 percent just through using anesthesia. By the turn of the 21st century, thanks largely to Anand, newborn anesthesia was standard.”

Anand then moved on to the question of pain experienced before birth. Not only did he find that it was a reality, Anand “argued that a fetus or premature newborn may actually feel pain more intensely than an older newborn,” Schulzke writes. “He asserted in 2007 congressional testimony on fetal pain legislation that ‘a fetus at 20 to 32 weeks of gestation would experience a much more intense pain than older infants or children or adults’ because certain pain mechanisms are in play much earlier, while ‘fibers which dampen and modulate the experience of pain’ are delayed until between 32-34 weeks.”

The reader is exposed to an important shift in the debate over fetal pain. The centrality of the cortex to pain has been challenged, indeed, one could argue, debunked by research that demonstrated children born without a higher brain structures (‘decorticate’ patients) are capable of experiencing pain and also other conscious behaviors.

In many ways, the most instructive portion of the story is that Schulzke explains the fork in the road over the debate about fetal pain. He quotes Maureen Condic, a neurobiologist at the University of Utah Medical School, who has testified before Congress on the question.
“’One camp gives a fundamentally psychological definition of pain perception,’ she said. ‘They say that to experience pain you must have conscious awareness. That, they argue, requires life experience to put sensations in context.’
“On the other side are those who, like Condic, see pain mainly as a biological reaction to trauma, one easily centered in the thalamus long before (and long after) the cortex is involved.”
Equally important Schulzke delves into the issue of where the deniers like Professor Stuart Derbyshire will eventually wind up. Derbyshire wrote in a widely-cited 2006 British Medical Journal piece that
“If pain also depends on content derived from outside the brain, then fetal pain cannot be possible, regardless of neural development.”
Schulzke draws the inevitable conclusion: “Not even a complete link between the cortex and thalamus would thus satisfy Derbyshire, who insists that pain requires experience only gained with time. Even a full-term newborn fails that test.” (my emphasis)

A terrific overview that addresses a ton of issues in a thorough but understandable way. Take ten minutes out and read “The disputed science of fetal pain.”

Reprinted with permission from NRLC

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/all-you-need-to-know-about-fetal-pain-in-one-story

Monday, October 15, 2012

Girl Scouts, Sullied

Bolding - my emphasis
Friday, 03 June 2011
A Catholic bishop just released a warning to Catholic parents about – of all things – the Girl Scouts. Auxiliary Bishop James Conley of Denver praises the Girl Scouts for forming “the young person in a spirit of service” and a “sense of duty to the wider community.” The group also “builds character and cultivates civic pride.”  

But, says Conley, “over the past year, a growing number of Catholic parents and youth ministers have shared concern with me. Their unease involves the Girl Scouts and especially the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGS).”
Conley says parents should explore the Girl Scouts and WAGGS websites and pay attention to all the links, which will be a “sobering experience.” 

He quotes one youth minister:
“It’s hard to imagine that a girl who remains involved with Girl Scouts into young adulthood won’t eventually learn of the connection her organization has with ‘pro-choice,’ pro-contraception, and ‘reproductive freedom’ groups. Having been influenced by GSUSA, she’ll be more receptive to this agenda. And if she was introduced to GSUSA through her parents and her local parish, then that will inevitably create contradiction between her Catholic faith and her Scouting experience.”
This is strong language from a respected Catholic bishop, but he likely will not be the only one stepping up to warn Catholic parents about what has happened to the Girl Scouts. Many other bishops are now reviewing their diocese’s connection with this once esteemed institution. 

Scrutiny of the Girl Scouts increased exponentially over the past year and a half since the group I lead, C-FAM (Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute) reported on a Girl Scout panel held at – where else? – the United Nations. We have watched the Girl Scouts for years as they have participated in the annual U. N. Commission on the Status of Women, what can only be described as a pro-abortion jamboree. 

Two years ago we sent some high school students into the Girl Scout panel, a panel where parents are not allowed. These wholesome young girls from a Catholic high school in Rhode Island said the panel was “creepy,” including odd role-playing about their bodies.

A year ago, one of our colleagues was sufficiently concerned that she went to the U. N. Girl Scout panel. She sat down, but was immediately asked to leave by the Girl Scout handlers. No parents allowed. So she hung around outside the locked door and when the meeting broke up she immediately went inside. What she found shocked her, a stack of brochures called “Healthy, Hot, and Happy,” which, among other things extols the virtues of anal sex. The brochure, produced by Planned Parenthood, is intended for adolescents with HIV/AIDS.
 
    The offending brochure
What was this material doing at a closed-door Girl Scout panel? For that, one has to look at what has been a long time relationship between the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood. 

In 2004 a Girl Scout troop in Texas held a conference at which they distributed sexually graphic brochures, not unlike the one at the U. N. Girl Scout panel. This caused a nationwide stink including a boycott of Girl Scout cookies. Girl Scouts USA President Kathy Cloninger appeared on the Today Show to try and calm everybody down.
Cloninger actually admitted, however, that the Girl Scouts work with Planned Parenthood: 
“We have relationships with our church communities, with YMCAs, and with Planned Parenthood organizations across the county, to bring information-based sex education programs to girls.” 
Even during the present crisis, the Girl Scouts have not denied or clarified this statement. They do say the Girl Scouts does not have a formal relationship with Planned Parenthood. Lots of wiggle room in that word “formal.” 

After the report about their panel at the United Nations and the vulgar brochures, Girl Scout flacks in New York swung into action and offered various justifications. They have claimed that the brochures weren’t in the room, that someone else must have left them there, that if they were in the room the Girl Scouts did not distribute them – and so on. 

A group called the National Federation of Catholic Youth Ministries has given cover to the Girl Scouts. This group supports and promotes scouting among Catholic schoolgirls. But they are folks who are supposed to be watching out for our girls. Its Executive Director, Robert McCarty, did his own “investigation” and, no surprise, gave the Girl Scouts a clean bill of health. What’s more, the report attacked C-FAM for making the initial report. Did his report address the comment by Kathy Cloninger that the Girl Scouts have a relationship with Planned Parenthood? Or any of the evidence that Girl Scout troops actually run programs with Planned Parenthood? Not a peep. 

I suspect that at the U. N. Planned Parenthood, being quite cozy with the Girl Scouts, said something like, “can we put these brochures in the room for your conference” and the Girl Scout leaders told their Planned Parenthood friends, “sure no problem,” all the while thinking that no one was watching. 

But this is only the tip of the iceberg. Many Catholic parents – and now bishops – are waking up the fact that the Girl Scouts at the national and international level have been taken over by the pelvic left, who are busy trying to indoctrinate our girls with their agenda. 

Parents should know that there are alternatives to the Girl Scouts. American Heritage Girls, for instance, is quite wholesome and free of the questionable ideology that has infiltrated Girl Scouts USA. American Heritage Girls even signed a letter of cooperation with the Boy Scouts, who have remained so true to their mission they are regularly attacked by the usual crew.

It is not too late to save the Girl Scouts, but only if people inside and outside the organization take action to stop the corruption of yet another American institution.


 
By Austin Ruse    
Austin Ruse is the President of the New York and Washinton, D.C.-based Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), a research institute that focuses exclusively on international social policy. The opinions expressed here are Mr. Ruse’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the policies or positions of C-FAM.

 
 
©2011 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org
 
The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.