Much has been made in recent weeks regarding the Girl Scouts’ apparent connection to a number of pro-abortion causes – specifically Planned Parenthood. Though the organization has officially denied any direct correlation with the group, a former CEO and at least 17 individuals Girl Scout councils openly admit they have a partnership with the nation’s largest abortion provider.
Additionally, the current national spokesperson for the Girl Scouts previously served in the same capacity for another far-left abortion advocacy organization. Attention to the issue increased significantly after the group’s official Twitter account published a link to a Huffington Post list of “incredible ladies” that included radical abortion fanatic and Texas Democrat politician Wendy Davis.
The backlash among social conservatives has resulted in a widespread boycott of the always popular Girls Scout cookies.
Instead of addressing these facts directly, however, the group’s officials are instead intimidating media outlets who report on this issue with threats of legal action.
LifeNews.com, which has covered the story extensively, recently reported that it received a letter from Brian Crawford, a Girl Scouts executive, demanding the site curtail its use of their official logo and denying any “alleged ties to Planned Parenthood.”
The Girl Scouts did not stop there, however. A lesser known site, founded and operated by Girl Scouts leader Ann Saladin, received a letter from Crawford issuing a “demand that your organization immediately cease” any use of the logo.
Steve Ertelt, editor of LifeNews, responded to the letter, saying the Girl Scouts are “clearly threatened” by the amount of attention being paid to its pro-abortion stance. “Their letter is a not-so-veiled intimidation tactic designed to get LifeNews to stop our reporting and to get pro-life groups to stop boycotting them.”
Along with almost $1 billion in annual revenue comes a significant amount of power for the executives behind the Girl Scouts. Instead of using that influence to directly respond to allegations levied against the organization, though, some see officials’ reaction as a threat meant to silence critics.
To be sure, this and any private organization has the right to endorse or reject any policies its leaders see fit – just as the Boy Scouts should have had in their effort to exclude openly gay members from the all-male group. In return, however, the public has the liberty to react, as many already have, with a boycott.
–B. Christopher Agee