Month Archives: January 2012

Life after Prenatal Disability Diagnosis

by Family Research Council

January 31, 2012

A few weeks ago, FRC co-hosted a pro-life conference for medical students and health professionals on the topic of serious prenatal disability diagnosis. Throughout the day we heard from a number of well respected academics and medical professionals —- a variety of researchers, medical doctors, registered nurses and other intellectuals, on the most up-to-date treatment options available as well as the latest in research findings. But perhaps the most powerful voices of the day were those who themselves received a poor prenatal diagnosis.

Kristal Dahlager, now a third year law student at Liberty University, has a remarkable story. Her mother was advised to essentially abort her because of a serious prenatally diagnosed problem. Yet Kristal, a thriving, beautiful and joyful young woman, survived and thrived. Click the ‘play’ button below to see to her tell the story:

Pro-Choice Women I Have Loved

by Robert Morrison

January 31, 2012

Today is my late mothers 90th birthday. We sometimes had words. For starters, she couldnt abide George W. Bush. Of my last visit in 2005, however, my memories are sweet. I did not know how ill she was. She told me how my dad had proposed to her. They shared a love of poetry, especially Robert Burns. Praising the Scots lyrical Mary Morison, Ma Jo (My Joy), my father said: If you marry me, your name will be Mary Morrison. What poetry lover could resist?

My mother told me how shed walked across the Brooklyn Bridge at midnight during World War II. She crossed over walking arm-in-arm with her young sisters-in-law. The kicker: I was carrying you then, she said. We differed strongly on abortion, but I will always cherish those stories she gave me as her parting gifts.

Frieda was the mother of one of my best friends in high school. Often, Id drop by their home, looking for my friend. Id often linger talking politics with Frieda and her husband, Irv, even if my friend was not at home. Irv was a Democratic zone leader in our town. Frieda did not suffer from polio. She suffered from nothing. Her lively talk distracted me from the special shoes and hobbling gait that polio had inflicted on her. She was totally like her beloved FDR. He, too, used witty repartee to distract everyone from his polio. Frieda and Irv named their black Scottish terrier after FDRs little dog, Fala, and they moved to his town of Hyde Park when they retired. Frieda and Irv instilled in me an indelible memory of the Holocaust and a deep concern for Israel.

In the midst of many a passionate debate on Fridays, all talk would come to a halt as the sun set. Frieda would be transformed from a strong advocate to a glowing follower of Judaism. Were political liberals, she told me, but were conservative Jews She lived her faith. I envision Frieda putting on a veil-like head covering and ceremonially lighting the Shabbos candles. Frieda would say the prayers that welcomed the Sabbath like a treasured guest.

Last week, on January 22nd, of all days, my wife, our daughter, and I helped celebrate Maries eightieth birthday. She has been like a cherished aunt to my daughter and son-in-law ever since they moved into her town several years back. Maries late husband, Joe, had been my seventh grade civics teacher. Joe later volunteered to be my campaign manager when I ran for the New York State Assembly. Joe drove me to Albany to meet the leaders of our party. Learning I had not previously visited our state capital, he said: You must say a shehechayanu, a Hebrew prayer for the first time you do anything. Joes father was a rabbi who made an aliya to Israel. His father had taught him: Blessed art Thou, O L-rd, Master of the Universe, that Thou hast preserved us in life to savor this experience for the first time. And Joe taught it to me. When I took a public stand against abortion, Joe was upset. He told me Marie disagreed strongly, too. But he and Marie never stopped working hard for my election. Frieda and Irv never slackened any effort for me, either.

As I think of these pro-choice women I have loved, I am most grateful for their being in my life. My wife and daughter are pro-life. So, I pray, will be our twin granddaughters. Each of these women, I believe, deserved a birth day.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: January 30, 1882

by Robert Morrison

January 30, 2012

We who hate your gaudy guts salute you

William Allen White

Republican William Allen White, editor of Kansas Emporia Gazette, was often exasperated with President Franklin Roosevelt, but he recognized his great qualities of leadership. Recently, one of the callers to a popular conservative talk show was especially angry at Newt Gingrich: Why, he said FDR was the greatest president of the twentieth century!

A highly acclaimed recent book, The Forgotten Man, by Amity Shlaes, argues that Roosevelts famous New Deal did not improve the stricken economy in the 1930s, and may even have slowed the recovery. Its a commonplace among conservatives to argueagainst the New Deals vast public works projectsthat it was really the military buildup leading into the Second World War that got us out of the Great Depression. But that leads us inevitably to look at FDRs wartime leadership. Columnist Pat Buchanan agrees with libertarian Ron Paul that we should never have entered the war against Hitler in 1941. Both of those gentlemen seem to have forgotten that it was Nazi Germany that declared war on the U.S.

As a conservative, I would not defend many of FDRs New Deal policies, although we should note that his Labor Secretary, Frances Perkins, the first woman of Cabinet rank, fought tirelessly to protect women from the hazards of coal mining, tunnel construction, and lumbering. Why? Because such jobs were hazardous to mothers. FDRs backing of union demands was always linked to a living wage for the working man. It was assumed he was working to support a wife and children.

Who does not admire the courage of a man who overcame polio? FDRs story of personal triumph over adversity inspired a nation whose economy was crippled. Times are bad now, to be sure, but we dont have to post armed guards on U.S. Mail Trucks. We are not seeing a hundred banks fail a day. And thank God we do not have 25% unemployment.

In the days before the 22nd Amendment, Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected president four times. Reagan thought the 22nd Amendment was a mistake. So do I.

Ronald Reagan used to enjoy telling historians and visiting Democrats that he had voted for Roosevelt every chance he got. When Sam Donaldson bellowed a question in his foghorn voice, asking Reagan if any of the economic mess he inherited was his fault, President Reagan smiled sheepishly and answered: Yes, for a long time, I was a Democrat. The puckish aside, the irrepressible humor covered Reagans savvy political strategy: He never criticized FDR.

Reagan was hostile to Big Government. FDR was Big Government. Reagan refused to forget the 100 million people trapped behind the Iron Curtain. Many conservatives blamed FDR for the abandonment of Eastern Europe to the Soviets. (Its an odd criticism coming from folks whose home team wanted to abandon Western Europe to the Nazis.)

Reagan campaigned against wasteful government spending, red tape, and higher taxes. The New Deal was awash in all of that. And yet, Reagan never attacked the man who embodied liberalism in his era.

Why not? I suspect it was because Reagan knew that not only he, but millions of his own supporters, had backed Roosevelt with enthusiasm. If your grandparents were Evangelicals or Catholics in the 1930s and 40s, the odds were they voted for FDR. If your family was Jewish or black, they almost certainly would have been Roosevelt loyalists.

Reagan wanted to keep the loyalty of these voters. His coalition contained major elements of the old Roosevelt coalition. Reagan even swiped some of FDRs best lines: This generation has a rendezvous with destiny. Many of those young Republicans who thrilled to those words were unaware Franklin Roosevelt had spoken them first.

If the greatest evil on the world stage in the first half of the twentieth century was Hitler and Nazism, Franklin D. Roosevelt was the leading opponent of that demonic regime. From the day that Hitler became Chancellor of Germanyon Roosevelts 51st birthday in 1933until their death twelve years later, the world was focused on a titanic struggle between freedom and tyranny. The outcome of that struggle was by no means assured.

Ronald Reagan gave his heart to FDRs fight against Nazism. Reagan volunteered for the military at the outbreak of the war. When poor eyesight kept him out of combat, Reagan made training films for the Army and raised millions in war bond drives.

It was doubtless that uncompromising stance against Hitler tyranny that made Reagan such an outspoken foe of Communist tyranny, the focus of evil in the second half of the last century.

Both men shared more than an aversion to tyranny. They shared a strong Christian faith.

When FDRs son Elliott boarded HMS Prince of Wales in Placentia Bay, Newfoundland in August, 1941, he informed Prime Minister Winston Churchill my father is a very religious man. Indeed, that Christmas, just days after the attack on Pearl Harbor brought the U.S. into the war, Churchill took up residence at the White House for three weeks.

FDR was worn out by Churchills late night sessions, fueled by tobacco smoke and whisky. But on Christmas morning, FDR insisted on prompt attendance at Foundry Methodist Church. I like to sing hymns with the Methodies, the President said, and besides, it will do Winston good. It did.

FDRs D-Day Prayer was broadcast from the White House on June 6, 1944. (Atheizers, hold your ears!) His Inaugural Day activities for his unprecedented fourth swearing-in in 1945 began with services at St. Johns Episcopal Church, across the street from the White House.

Conservative hero Winston Churchill appreciated FDRs leadership qualities. He would certainly find it strange to see us denigrating the man he called the Champion of Freedom. At the outset of the Second World War, Churchill said: If we open up a quarrel between yesterday and today, we may lose tomorrow. Good advice.

Is the Gray Ladys Slip Showing?

by Robert Morrison

January 30, 2012

The New York Times takes a firm stance against slavery. The Gray Ladyas the authoritative newspaper of record was once known—wants everyone to know that she wont tolerate backsliding on the great moral issue of the nineteenth century.

I take no issue with the Times on slavery or on segregation. The liberal conscience of Americafor so the editors see themselveshad an honorable record on those twin evils. In the American Civil War, the Times staunchly defended Lincoln and his Emancipation Proclamation. Similarly, during the modern Civil Rights era, the Gray Lady thundered daily against Jim Crow. It was for many of us the great moral issue of the twentieth century.

In the 1960s and 70s, I was a daily reader of the Times. But recently? Not so much.

And the reason is simply that I cannot abide the Times regularly railing against the defenders of human life. The Times routinely excoriates the Roman Catholic Church. Dont even ask them about Evangelicals and Lutherans who speak up for the unborn.

Since that grim gray day in 1973 when Roe v. Wade was handed down, the Times has not found a single abortion it could not defend. Of 53,000,000 innocent lives lost, there is not one that should have been welcomed in life and protected by law. At least according to the Gray Lady.

Now, the Times is again putting Thomas Jefferson under its moral microscope. The Gray Lady is perplexed by the paradox of this Apostle of Liberty keeping hundreds of black Americans in bondage. Jefferson himself was perplexed. So were virtually all those members of the Founding generation who found themselves entangled with the serpent, human bondage. Patrick Henry anguished in a letter to a friend: Would any one believe that I am Master of Slaves of my own purchase!

So if they were so anguished about it, why did so many of the Founders own slaves? Henry candidly confessed: I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living without them… Well, how hypocritical of Henry. He cant put up with the inconvenience of not owning slaves.

Isnt it ironic, therefore, that the Times has nothing but praise for Supreme Court jurisprudence in the area of abortion? Consider Justice OConnors opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992):

To eliminate the issue of reliance that easily, however, one would need to limit cognizable reliance to specific instances of sexual activity. But to do this would be simply to refuse to face the fact that for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives

In short, men and women have a reliance interest in abortion-on-demand. OConnor thinks its necessary to keep legal lethal violence against the unborn so that people can order their lives as they wish.

What an insult to professional women like my wife, a high ranking military officer, and the millions of other professional women, including, presumably, Sandra Day OConnor herself to say that without legal abortion they could not have achieved their honors and status.

We can point to many, many moves the Founders made in an attempt to arrest the expansion of slavery. Jefferson, in particular, sought as a Congressman to ban slavery west of the Appalachian Mountains. He lost in the Confederation Congress by one vote.

Heaven itself was silent in that awful moment, he mourned. But Jefferson applauded a partial victory when Congress approved the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which banned slavery north of the Ohio River.

The First Congress under the Constitution affirmed the Northwest Ordinance and President Washington willingly signed it. Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass would point again and again to Jeffersons approval and Washingtons signature as indisputable proof that Congress could prevent slavery in the territories.

The Founders called slavery wrong and treated as a wrong. They tried in many ways to work for its elimination.

As President, Thomas Jefferson prodded the Congress to take action, early action, to stop the execrable commerce [his words] of the Atlantic Slave Trade. He asked Congress in 1806 to act, even though the Constitution prevented the bill from taking effect until January 1, 1808. Jefferson pleaded against this violation of the human rights of unoffending Africans. [Again, his stirring words.]

The Times rightly criticizes the author of the Declaration of Independence for failing to follow George Washingtons splendid example of freeing his own slaves. Fair enough.

But the Gray Lady makes no mention of his oceanic achievement in banning the Slave Trade. President Jefferson had no constitutional obligation to act as he did. He didnt even want the slave ships to depart from Africas shores if they would arrive here after January 1, 1808.

Hillary Clinton has said abortion is wrong (Newsweek, 31 October 1994), and her husband said it should be rare. But their public lives have been dedicated to expanding abortion at home and abroad. The Times has applauded every pro-abortion move by Hillary Clinton, and by Presidents Clinton and Obama.

Never has the Times asked why it is wrong, if it is wrong, or why it should be rare. And the Gray Lady is even less curious about what Mr. Obama or the Clintons have ever done actually to make abortion rare. In fact, the only place President Obama has made abortion rare is on the Moon. He achieved that only by grounding NASA.

The Gray Lady has a positive genius for seeing motes in her neighbors eye. She is utterly blind to the beam in her own. And, frankly dear lady, your slip is showing.

A response to Dana Milbank’s “Roe v. Wade’s Greedy Offspring”

by Family Research Council

January 27, 2012

Dana Milbank’s “Roe v. Wades Greedy Offspring,” in the Washington Post on January 17, 2012, addressed inaccuracies in a report released this week by abortion clinic owner Merle Hoffman. Having attended the press conference, too, I appreciate his honest depiction about the lack of data substantiating the claim that the abortion rate is increasing due to our economy.

However, I do take issue with two other points. Mr. Milbank writes that the pro-life community should not “resist easy birth control” but neglects to describe the reality as it currently is. Domestic family planning programs were funded by the US government at a level of $1.971 billion in 2011. And the PPACA mandates insurance plans to carry (with no co-pay) all contraceptives, including drugs and devices that destroy rather than prevent life.

Additionally Mr. Milbank’s depiction of pro-life groups as finally motivated is not only offensive but totally wrong. He lists as examples the (free) USCCB vigil with thousands in attendance and my organization’s (free) ProLifeCon. The March for Life is a peaceful walk with thousands of enthusiastic young people protesting what they see as the human rights issue of our day. The events surrounding the anniversary of Roe are motivated by something that money can’t buy: the inherent dignity of each person.”

Feathers Ruffled at Greater DC Girl Scout Council

by Cathy Ruse

January 27, 2012

The Girl Scout Council of the Nationals Capitol is handing out a statement to people who are inquiring about the charges I and others have made about the far-Left agenda at Girl Scouts HQ. Lets take a look:

Regarding the charge that the Girl Scouts official policy is to admit transgender toddlers, the statement reads: Our Council has not dealt with requests from families of transgender youth. Our focus remains on girls in kindergarten through… It does not say they will not admit transgender boys and in fact it is the national policy that they do so if ever there is a request.

More from their statement: And, contrary to rumors, we do not make donations to this group [Planned Parenthood]. The fact is that as a charitable organization we do not make donations to any other organization. We see your Straw Man, ladies! Nobody is claiming that you donate money to Planned Parenthood, so disclaiming it gets you nowhere. The charge is that you partner with… Planned Parenthood organizations across the country, in the words of Girl Scout CEO Kathy Cloninger on The Today Show.

More: Girl Scouts of the USA is one of the 145 Member Organizations of WAGGGS, which promotes mutual understanding and cross-cultural opportunities for girls around the world. Ah yes, they are touchy about the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, an aggressively pro-abortion organization which openly partners with the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Girl Scouts USA often makes the point that they are just one of many member organizations; they dont like to admit that Girl Scouts USA is the single largest national component of WAGGGS, making up over a third of its 10 million members.

More: “the WAGGGS program is separate from our Girl Scout program, and your Girl Scout membership dues and cookie sales proceeds do not support WAGGGS. Not so fast. Every little girl who signs up for the Girl Scouts is automatically made a member of WAGGGS, and there are apparently 6 different ways that Girls Scouts USA fund the radical WAGGGS. If Girl Scouts of the Nations Capitol refrains from every one of these 6 funding streams, they should prove it. Girl Scouts USA paid about 1.5 million dollars in member quota dues to WAGGGS in 2009.

Finally, a small change was in order to my blog on the Girl Scouts from yesterday. In the 4th FACT about Girl Scouts and abortion, I clarified that Girl Scout “councils” are regional and multi-county entities, since people tend to confuse troops with councils.

Responding to Islamism and Persecution of the Church

by Rob Schwarzwalder

January 26, 2012

Persecution of self-identified Christians has become a pandemic in the developing world. For Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, Copts and others, making the simple assertion that they follow Jesus Christ can lead to abuse, eviction, disfigurement, and far too often death.

Today at FRC, we heard a remarkable and very probing lecture by Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo, a profound theologian and himself a former Muslim, about the way the church is responding to the threat of radical Islam both abroad and here in the United States.

Dr. Sookhdeo drew a striking parallel between the church in Germany during the rise of Nazism and the way Christians should be responding to the Islamists who would undermine the very foundations of representative self-government and religious liberty.

Christians are called to love and minister to Muslims and also stand against an agenda which is inherently oppressive and even violent. Dr. Sookhdeo offered wise counsel about how we can do both. You can watch his lecture here.

In addition, there are excellent summaries of anti-Christian persecution worldwide in The Catholic Thing and the Voice of the Martyrs newsroom.

Of Shipwrecks and Debates

by Robert Morrison

January 26, 2012

Think of an iceberg and a ship. What comes to mind? The Titanic, of course. And if you dont mentally picture the greatest luxury liner in history with her stern in the starry, moonless sky, about to break up and go under, you havent been to the movies. Unfortunately, Hollywood created a thoroughly dishonest account of that night to remember. The image of a bribed ships second officer who deliberately shot panicked civilians is only one of the many offenses against the well-documented truths of that night one hundred years ago.

I was researching an American history book several years ago when the subject of the Titanic came up in the text. Although some 1,500 lives were lost, she was not the greatest maritime disaster in history. So, what was the greatest? In those pre-Google days, I had to go hunting.

I learned that the greatest maritime disaster was the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff on January 11, 1945. That German vessel was evacuating terrified refugees from East Prussia. The Soviet Red Army was overrunning this Nazi territory, raping and murdering.

A Soviet submarine torpedoed the German ship and she went down with loss of 9,000 lives, mostly civilians, mostly women and children. The original name for the ship was to have been Adolf Hitler. Hitler, however, fearing the symbolism of any vessel bearing his name being sunk, had forbidden any such naming. So the vessel was named for the Nazi leader of Switzerland.

Ask any journalist what was the greatest maritime disaster and he or she would doubtless say Titanic. Thats understandable. Most Americans think the same thing. There will probably never be a movie made about the Gustloff sinking. Nine thousand lives lost in the midst of a horrific war are not as compelling a story as rich and famous people going down to their deaths on a clear night, with the sea like glass, near the end of a century of peace.

With compelling stories of the Costa Concordia shipwreck and gripping images of the great liner split open on the rocks, its not surprising that the news media focuses on a villain. It surely seems the captain of that stricken vessel is a villain. Id like to see more attention paid to the courageous divers who are searching the treacherous interior of the sunken ship. And Id like to see an interview with the Italian Coast Guardsman who ordered that ship captain to leave the safety of his lifeboat and get back on board his sinking ship to aid his passengers.

The day after Titanic went down in 1912, President Taft ordered the U.S. Coast Guard to take part in what became the International Ice Patrol. It continued for seventy years. In 1982, this boring but dangerous task was given over to satellite surveillance. When I spied a ball cap bearing the legend International Ice Patrol on its peak, I wasnt sure what it was. Then, it dawned on me: I had taken part in that iceberg patrol as a young enlisted man on board the Coast Guard Cutter Unimak.

Happily, dramatic stories of ships colliding with icebergs and sinking have been few since the Ice Patrol began. The Ice Patrol and later satellite surveillance have largely eliminated this seaborne terror. Eliminated as well has been most media attention. The amazing thing is not that a single great ship struck an iceberg and went down. The true miracle is that it hasnt happened again.

Im compelled to think of shipwrecks as I survey the current political stage. The news media are the last people who can give us a clear picture of reality. They are the last ones we should allow to vet candidates for the highest office in the land. Reporters set the parameters. They frame the questions. Like Uncle Walter Cronkite, they tell us thats the way it is.

Well, it aint. For example, Cuba is just 90 miles from our shores. The Islamist terror group Hezbollah is said have training camps there. Has there been a single question about Cuba in the dozens of presidential debates this year? Has there been a single question about Cuba in the fifty years of presidential debates?

Or, consider Quemoy and Matsu. These tiny fishing islands are a few miles away from the mainland of Communist China. They were the subject of fierce debate between Jack Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960. Nixon alleged that Kennedy was soft of communism because he was unwilling to commit U.S. troops to defend Quemoy and Matsu. Nixon pounded Kennedy on the campaign trail for weeks after they debated Quemoy and Matsu on television. Kennedy won that election, very narrowly.

Nixon was elected eight years later. And four years after that, Nixon essentially abandoned not only Quemoy and Matsu, but Taiwan itself. Nixons famous overture to Red China was hailed as a master stroke of diplomacy.

Nothing on Cuba. First Quemoy and Matsu loom large, then they disappear down the memory hole. Thats how unreal, how farcical, how unpresidential these debates are.

Sean Hannity says he looks to see blood all over the stage in these debates. And he thinks this is a good thing. I can tell Sean that blood on the floor or on deck is very slippery, very dangerous.

If we doubt the danger of these debates, we have only to consult the unfavorable ratings of some of the leading candidates. For the media, these debates are an ocean of good ink. When conservatives fight, the media will gladly hold their coats. But for many of us, these debates look increasingly like a shipwreck.

Trials and Tribulations of Girl Land

by Krystle Gabele

January 26, 2012

Caitlin Flanagan recently released a new book, Girl Land, which takes a look at the world of todays adolescent girls and the issues they are facing. Of course, Flanagan has again enraged feminists everywhere with her perspective.

In Girl Land, Flanagan looks at how culture has changed over time and how it has become focused on viewing girls as sexual objects and denying them the privacy, daydreams, and crushes that normal girlhood provides. In other words, they are losing their sense of self.

However, Girl Land is also drawing some criticism from those who might agree with Flanagans point of view. In a recent RealClearBooks op-ed by Heather Wilhelm, Girl Land received some criticism as painting things too broadly. Wilhelm brings up a great point that this book fosters ambiguity toward men, as well as making excuses for the boys will be boys mentality.

On one hand, Flanagan seems to buy into the all men are predators narrative, speaking of the pervy uncle and the drunk father hitting on the babysitter as if they are prototypes, not anomalies. Perhaps this stems from an assault Flanagan endured when she was younger, which she details in the book. But its an odd quirk, particularly in a girl culture better represented by the aggressive, love-struck babysitter in Crazy, Stupid, Love (in the movie, she harasses her charges clueless father, leading to mortifying results) than anything else.

But then, on the other hand, Girl Land exhibits a strange sense of boys will be boys that excuses even the crassest behavior. If I were to learn that my children had engaged in oral sex outside a romantic relationship, and as young adolescents I would be sad, Flanagan writes. But I wouldnt think that they had been damaged by the experience; I wouldnt think I had failed catastrophically as a mother, or that they would need therapy. Because I dont have daughters, I have sons.”

Wilhelm also argues that girls are facing a society that promotes promiscuity over abstinence. Girl Land did not mention anything about respect for this critical moral choice.

Kids need to know how their behaviors will impact them in the long run, and the implications of not making the right choices behaviorally. Shouldn’t Girl Land be focused on holding both sons and daughters to high moral standards? Our society needs these standards now more than ever.

Girl Scouts Not Pro-Abortion! Earth Not Round!

by Cathy Ruse

January 25, 2012

I recently opined in the Washington Times that people should forgo the Thin Mints this year because of the far-left sociopolitical agenda pushed by Girl Scouts HQ. Others, too, have sounded the alarm. Feathers have been ruffled.

While their transgressions are sundry (forcing troops to admit cross-dressing boys being just one example), Girl Scout executives and their apologists seem most eager to defend the Scouts supposed official neutrality on abortion and official non-partnership with the nations abortion giant, Planned Parenthood.

Here are just five facts for the skeptic to consider:

FACT: On March 5, 2004 Girl Scouts CEO Kathy Cloninger admits on NBCs The Today Show: We partner with many organizations. We have relationships with…Planned Parenthood organizations across the country. Watch her admit it here:

FACT: In January 2012, Girl Scouts employee Renise Rodriguez wears Pray to End Abortion t-shirt during off-duty visit to her Tucson Girl Scout office and is ordered to turn the shirt inside out or leave. See Renise in her t-shirt here.

FACT: For fourteen years the Girls Scouts in Waco, TX co-sponsor sex ed conference with Planned Parenthood. Its Perfectly Normal book (written by Planned Parenthood executive) given to all children in attendance says abortion can be a positive experience. View the 2003 event brochure listing Girl Scouts as a cosponsor here [PDF].

FACT: In national survey, sixteen other regional, multi-county Girl Scout councils admit to partnering with Planned Parenthood; many other councils refuse to answer survey question. Watch interview about the survey on The OReilly Factor here.

FACT: In 2010-2011 Girls Scouts in New York partner with Planned Parenthood sex ed program, Real Life. Real Talk. The program website touts their partners: Real Life. Real Talk. is proud to count the following organizations, faith communities and companies as partners: …Girl Scouts of NYPENN Pathways. See screenshot of program web page showing Girls Scouts as partner here.

There are many other things to consider, especially for those for whom this is not an academic exercise (i.e., if you have a daughter in Girl Scouts). Please, please visit or any other of the Girl Scout watchdog sites proliferating on the Internet.

December 2011 «

» February 2012