If Enough Troops Stood Up to the Girl Scouts’ Top Ranks…

I’m guessing that their current connections with Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups would end once and for all.

I wasn’t a Girl Scout when I was young, but when my twins’ class needed a Daisy Scout leader years ago, I volunteered. Though I never experienced any controversy at the local level, I would occasionally hear rumblings from pro-life organizations about the GSUSA hierarchy and their beliefs about teen sexuality and abortion. I eventually decided to resign my position and pull my girls from scouting.

I wish I could have stayed and fought.

At the time, I did tell the moms who were leading other troops at my girls’ school exactly why I was leaving. I explained that I wasn’t telling them what they should do — that I understood there was so much on the plus side. But with my strong pro-life beliefs, I just couldn’t participate any longer. I say the same whenever I meet anyone involved in scouting who I think might also have a problem with those liberal stances. And not surprisingly, most reiterate that they have never come across anything objectionable in their scouting activities.

However, the top ranks of the GSUSA do seem to have a very liberal sexuality and abortion agenda that flies in the face of the supposed “neutrality” that the organization claims on this (outdated) page on its website. While trying to say that the GSUSA is only “a seat at the table” of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS) – much like the U.S. at the U.N. — they gloss over exactly what is being endorsed at that table. 

The web page makes reference to the 54th Commission on the Status of Women at the United Nations held in 2010, which created a lot of buzz in pro-life circles that year, but does not address the Bali Global Youth Forum Declaration from December 2012, or the latest controversy regarding the Women Deliver global conference in May of this year.

The Youth Forum Declaration included calls for “sexual rights,” access to “abortion,”  and “reproductive rights” for children as young as ten years old. It sought to eliminate parental consent and “age of consent” restrictions in all sexual and reproductive matters.

Women Deliver, as mentioned on The Corner by Ian Tuttle, does do great work for women in the Third World. But their conference had the likes of euthanasia advocate Peter Singer (who has proposed legalizing infanticide) and late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart (who performs abortions after 24 weeks, sometimes with questionable legality) speaking about “family planning.” 

LifeNews has pressed the GSUSA on their involvement in both the Youth Forum and the Women Deliver conference. Basically GSUSA claims that WAGGGS does not speak for all its members. This is interesting, because WAGGGS has declared that they do speak for all their members. Apparently, GSUSA wants to have it both ways, as LifeNews points out:

If GSUSA really objected to being included under the WAGGGS’ advocacy umbrella, which promotes sexual and reproductive rights on behalf all “10 million” members, GSUSA lawyers would lock down WAGGGS’ representations in a heartbeat, to protect the Girl Scouts’ costly re-branding efforts.

The reality is this: GSUSA has not once objected to WAGGGS’ global advocacy on sexual and reproductive issues, nor to WAGGGS’ claims to represent its entire membership, including GSUSA, on those issues. They refuse to disown even WAGGGS’ most radical pro-abortion efforts (e.g., the Bali Youth Declaration). And they continue to fund and support WAGGGS’ global megaphone, as it amplifies “progressive” messages promoting adolescent abortion and youth sexual rights. They will do nothing to impede or even distance themselves from WAGGGS’ pro-abortion, pro-contraception, “sexual rights” advocacy.

So it leaves a tough decision for those involved with scouting. Do you stay, knowing that, while cookie-sale profits stay local, a portion of your annual dues and donations to the Juliette Low Fund go to WAGGGS? Or do you realize that it would be really tough to fight an organization that will more than likely continue its current path, and quit?

Actually there is an alternative . . .