Girl Scouts Convention Features Pro-Abortion Speakers

Girl Scouts Convention Features Pro-Abortion Speakers

Houston, TX – Girl Scout leaders and members from across the nation will come together next month for their annual convention and the event, dubbed Renewing the Promise, again raises questions about the organization and the issue of abortion.

I was in girl scouts from Brownie until Senior Scout in the 12th Grade. In other words, I loved Girl Scouts. One of the unfortunate side effects the women’s movement was the take over of the the Girl Scouts by feminists with an agenda. This sort of speaker, in my opinion, simply shows that these women continue to try to make Girl Scouts a feminist training ground.
There are certain local troops that maintain a wonderful place for girls and young women to flower. But the women at the top of Girl Scouts definitely have an unhealthy feminist agenda.

My daughter was in girl scouts for several years. It has definitely been taken over and subverted.

During this advent and christmas season, please pass the word to anyone thinking of scouting. My son’s boy scout experience was not as bad but definitely on the same trajectory - subversion.

It is very sad. I wrote about it last month in this piece.

There is, at least, a solution: American Heritage Girls. What the Girl Scouts were before they were corrupted.

I guess I’ve bought my last box of Girl Scout cookies. I won’t support them in any way now and I’ll do my best to get the word out.

It’s a shame.

They have had pro-abort speakers for years now. That is what convinced my wife and I not to enroll our daughters in GS.

We found a great American Heritage Girls troop in a neighboring parish and our girls could not be happier.

FYI, the Girl Scouts recently forced a troop leader to admit a boy into the troop over her objections.

They did so because the boy considers himself to be a girl, and GSUSA thinks that alone is enough for GS to consider him to be a girl

So the troop leader has to consider this boy to be a girl, and that would include for things like camping and lavatory use.

If I was the troop leader, I would have folded the troop rather that submit to GSUSA on that one.


Is there a Catholic theologian on this site who could explain whether allowing my daughter to continue in girl scouts would now constitute material cooperation with evil of a mediate nature, proximate or remote? Is mediate, remote, passive material cooperation sinful? Would intent have any bearing? Would denunciation of the actions of the national organization be sufficient if my daughter continued?

It is my understanding that our local girl scouts do not partner with Planned Parenthood. I would certainly protect her from any corrupting literature. However, some of the proceeds from cookie sales do go to the national organization.

Boy Scouts is officially still Hell no to Girls, Gays and Godless

Girls Scouts is terrible, put them in Venturing (14-20)

Or American Heritage Girls :slight_smile:

AHG and the Boys Scouts actually have an affliation ( which is something the BSA never had with GSUSA.)

There are a few all girl, dual AHG Troop\Venturing Crews. Needless to say, this is just for the older girls. The 5-13 aged girls are just in the AHG troop.

AHG is patterned after the Boy Scouts, using the patrol method ( AHG calls them ‘squads’ with very similar rank advancement.

And how will you protect her from the prevailing (or subtle) attitudes that champion a cause diametrically opposed to her faith?

Denver bishop: Girl scouts could make girls more open to pro-abortion agenda

DENVER, Colorado, June 1, 2011 ( - A Denver Catholic bishop is warning parents that membership in the Girl Scouts could carry the danger of making their daughters more receptive to the pro-abortion agenda.

In a Wednesday column for the Denver Catholic Register, Denver Auxiliary Bishop James D. Conley observes that in the last year a growing number of parents and youth ministers have shared concerns with him over the Girl Scouts alignment with groups advocating abortion.

By knowing the moms who actually have daughters in the den. The girls have no contact with leaders outside our den. This is a problem with the national leadership.

There are so many inaccuracies and factual errors in this “article”, I don’t even have the energy to begin listing them.
Does this so-called publication even have one fact-checker on staff?!!!?

I highly suggest people not post stories from this alleged “news” website, which time and time again publishes completely biased, factually-wrong stories and only causes much bad feeling and directed hatred where it may not be due.

If there are factual errors please point them out. To make a blanket statement saying it is full of errors is not convincing

Here are some other national publications (USA Today and The Washington Times)
who have covered this story, perhaps you would like to dispute their articles as biased as well:

I tried to use that justification to keep my daughter in GS for awhile. Bottom line, just by mer association with being a GS, people outside the “den” will still associate your daughter with the national agenda. There is no escaping that, especially when you go on any field trips to earn a badge, sell the cookies, or talk about GS with anyone not involved with GS. Just by association, you are giving your approval to the activities on the national level.

I really don’t care what people think about me, or my daughter. I am not sure that your statement is correct about “giving my approval” just by association. Certainly I do not approve the actions of the President of the U.S., even though I am an American. Certainly you would not say that all students at Notra Dame give approval to the immoral actions of their faculty simply because they pay tuition to the college. I would have to quit my job at a large corperation, etc. etc. if that was the case. I don’t approve of the immoral actions of some of the national leadership by inviting these speekers. This is why I asked the question of mediate, remote, passive material cooperation.

Perhaps then that is the difference between you and me. Because I do and did care what people thought about me, and especially my daughter, and her childhood activities that should be kept as innocent and fun as possible and NOT be in bed with the abortion industry. We had people starting to ask us questions about this relationship with Planned Parenthood when we were involved, especially when it came to cookie time. Its not my daughter’s job to have to explain why an organization she’s involved in as a 9 year old is partners with PP to other people, nor was it an activity that we felt was no longer worthy of our time AND money. What kind of lessons would we have been teaching her to be involved in an organization that has ties with PP, an organization that goes against our Catholic beliefs and teachings?

As far as the arguement you tried to make by equating this situation to approving the President’s actions, or being a student at Notre Dame. That’s comparing apples to oranges. Many people choose not to go to such colleges as Notre Dame because they do feel its immoral and Catholic in name only. Many people are using their power to vote to show their disapproval of the President. Many people do quit their jobs because they find their places of work have become situations that are contrary to their moral values. But the Girl Scouts is something that is easily avoidable because its not a necessity in life, its a girlhood activity, nothing more. Its not a matter of life and death, but if one can avoid supporting anything that has to do with Planned Parenthood, that very well is a matter of life and death.

Personally I have never come into contact with **anyone **outside of this forum who is aware of the problems with the national leadership of the girl scouts. Certainly I have never seen it published that the Girl Scouts give money to Planned Parenthood. That being said, there seems to be a faction within the organization (especially at national, and a few councils) that is extremely feminist. I have not seen any of this locally, and several of my girls have been in Girl Scouts for a total of 14 years. Our local council sent out a press release that it does not partner with Planned Parenthood in any way. Our local Catholic Archdiocese promotes both Boy and Girl Scouts, and we have an extremely pro-life, orthodox bishop. I think at this point it would be unfair to label the entire organization as supporting Planned Parenthood and their agenda. However, I am open to persuasion about this. But from what I have read on the internet and my own personal experience has been that the Girl Scout Council in my area does not promote this stuff in any way. If there are any theologians reading this thread I would like an answer to my previous question.

As to the comparison to Notre Dame, people are free to not attend just as they are free to not join the Girl Scouts, as you have stated. Would you then conclude that the all the students who attend there are promoting the immoral actions of the College leadership simply by their association with the school? Are the students individually morally culpable for any immoral deads by the governing body, even if they protest those deads? I think the comparison is a good one since both organizations have invited pro-choice feminists to speek.

I have personally been boycotting Pepsi because of their funding of research using fetal cells. I would not, however,conclude that those who choose not to boycott are promoting abortion. If we had to disassociate ourselves from every organization, product or situation that might in someway, no matter how remotely, promote immorallity, life would be extraorinarilly burdonsome.

Here is the Catholic theological reasoning:

The principle of licit cooperation in evil

The first fundamental distinction to be made is that between formal and material cooperation. Formal cooperation is carried out when the moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, sharing in the latter’s evil intention. On the other hand, when a moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, without sharing his/her evil intention, it is a case of material cooperation.

Material cooperation can be further divided into categories of immediate (direct) and mediate (indirect), depending on whether the cooperation is in the execution of the sinful action per se, or whether the agent acts by fulfilling the conditions - either by providing instruments or products - which make it possible to commit the immoral act. Furthermore, forms of proximate cooperation and remote cooperation can be distinguished, in relation to the “distance” (be it in terms of temporal space or material connection) between the act of cooperation and the sinful act committed by someone else. Immediate material cooperation is always proximate, while mediate material cooperation can be either proximate or remote.

Formal cooperation is always morally illicit because it represents a form of direct and intentional participation in the sinful action of another person.10 Material cooperation can sometimes be illicit (depending on the conditions of the “double effect” or “indirect voluntary” action), but when immediate material cooperation concerns grave attacks on human life, it is always to be considered illicit, given the precious nature of the value in question11.

A further distinction made in classical morality is that between active (or positive) cooperation in evil and passive (or negative) cooperation in evil, the former referring to the performance of an act of cooperation in a sinful action that is carried out by another person, while the latter refers to the omission of an act of denunciation or impediment of a sinful action carried out by another person, insomuch as there was a moral duty to do that which was omitted12.

Passive cooperation can also be formal or material, immediate or mediate, proximate or remote. Obviously, every type of formal passive cooperation is to be considered illicit, but even passive material cooperation should generally be avoided, although it is admitted (by many authors) that there is not a rigorous obligation to avoid it in a case in which it would be greatly difficult to do so.

I believe it is questionable, at best, to equate supporting Girl Scouts to supporting Planned Parenthood. Perhaps the situation is changing for the worse, making the argument more supportable.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit