The Right Opinion

This Ain't Your Mamma's Girl Scouts

By Rebecca Hagelin · Nov. 9, 2011

Culture Challenge of the Week: Girl Scouting Turns Raunchy

The Girl Scouts(GSUSA) gather this week in Houston (November 8-13) to celebrate its 100th Anniversary, with a convention theme of “Renewing the Promise: Girl Scouts in a New Century.”

The Girl Scouts' promise to its 3.2 million members includes, among other things, the commitment to help girls “develop values to guide their actions and provide the foundation for sound decision-making.”

A quick look at the speaker lineup for its upcoming convention makes clear that the Girl Scouts are promoting not the traditional values of the original Girl Scouts, but the radical, raunchy values and relativistic decision-making of the trendy left-wing Girl Scouts.

The real theme might be described more aptly as “Reneging on the Promise: Girl Scouts Turn Left in the New Century.”

The women showcased at this year’s convention – held up as models of leadership and inspiration – reveal an agenda-driven organization. Speakers include:

Swanee Hunt, a powerful Democratic fundraiser and philanthropist with a mission to achieve “gender parity.” She has directed huge sums to homosexual and pro-abortion causes.

Annise Parker, Mayor of Houston, is a pro-abortion lesbian who presided over the opening of Houston’s new Planned Parenthood abortion center.

Marlee Matlin, an actress and LGBT supporter, is known for her portrayal of a deaf lesbian on Showtime’s “The L word.”

Monique Coleman, singer and actress (star of Disney’s popular High School Musical films), promotes pro-abortion organizations like South Africa’s Love Life – a program aimed to teach adolescents how to assert their sexual and reproductive rights.

Parents who are trying to instill timeless values and strong morals in their daughters would never want them to idolize Monique Chapman and her trash talk. Or to find inspiration in a Girl Scout “Woman of Distinction” like Ann Shoket, Editor of Seventeen Magazine – a publication that encourages teen sex as an “amazing experience.” But, most parents don’t know the true agenda of today’s Girl Scouts.

The Girls Scouts' agenda is most obvious on a national level, but state organizations are complicit as well. Take the Colorado state organization, for example. They recently issued a statement, in response to a parent’s objection that her cross-dressing seven-year-old boy was refused membership in the local Girl Scouts chapter, that parrots typical LGBT propaganda. The Colorado Girl Scouts reversed its local leader’s refusal to admit the boy and instead announced that it welcomes any boy who ‘self-identifies,’ as the phrase goes, as a girl. This oh-so-progressive transgender-supportive policy says that, “If a child identifies as a girl and the child’s family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout.”

In contrast to the Boy Scouts of America – an organization I have long-supported and recommended – the Girl Scouts USA has been co-opted as the functional arm of the Democrat, feminist establishment. And they dupe millions of American families into believing that their only mission is to promote wholesome leadership activities for girls.

How to Save Your Family: Tell the Truth About the Girl Scouts

In its 2011 Convention blitz, the Girl Scouts called upon its Alumnae to support the Girl Scouts' work, reminding its former members that they “belong to one of the most powerful all-women networks in the country.” True enough.

If you are a former Girl Scout, and want the Scouts to return to a wholesome emphasis on character, leadership, and service in the context of traditional morality, then make your voice heard. Email or phone them to protest the promotion of pro-abortion and LGBT advocates and to ask them to stop trampling over the religious and moral concerns of their own members.

Visit, a simple website with powerful information about the Girl Scouts' leftward tilt. Founded by two longtime Girl Scouts who left the organization because of its increasing connections to pro-abortion advocacy, SpeakNow keeps Girl Scouts – and their parents – informed about the organization’s disturbing direction.

In troops all over the country, the Girl Scouts gather young girls who want nothing other than to form fast friendships, find encouragement, and serve others. And it’s a crying shame that, on the eve of their 100th Anniversary, the Girl Scouts have broken their promise to the girls they once sought to serve.


Vince said:

There is an alternative program available for girls called "American Heritage Girls". Check them out instead.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Ken said:

On a related note, most of the local GSA folks are dedicated and do a righteous job with young girls. If you really want to support your local GSA group of kids and volunteers rather than the liberal GSA corporate office, write a check to the account of the local GS troop instead of buying the cookies. That way the local kids get the benefit from all of your contribution. Otherwise, virtually all of the cookie sales money goes to the GSA corporate folks and the cookie manufacurer, while the local girls and their leaders do all of the grunt work. Helps with the waistline too....

Wednesday, November 9, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Jim in Western NC said:

I do like their Thin Mint cookies. Guess I'll now have to find an alternative.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011 at 10:10 PM

Jim in Western NC said:

Vince, I looked at the AHG website. What I read was close to what the Girl Scouts stood for only three or four decades ago. Sad, but also good that a better choice exists. Thanks.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011 at 10:19 PM

TammyBeth said:

It saddens me that so many people who understand so very little about transsexualism are those most adamantly willing to take hard line stands in response to families going through an incredibly difficult situation.Without dismissing valid concerns over various socio-political issues (such as abortion) I can't help but note how easily my fellow Christians resort to hatefulness in the guise of concern rather than educate themselves about those people they don't understand (and by educate I do not mean lap-up the junk science that NARTH pumps out)I am a life-long conservative Christian, in fact spent over 2 decades in the gospel ministry, and I also am possessed of the condition (resulting from a birth defect) of transsexualism. I know from my own experience and those of many of my fellow transpeople who are also committed Christians, how deeply ill-informed many well-meaning Christians are. I know what it's like to live and walk the path on both sides of this issue, and i do what i can to say gently to my fellow believers "let me share with you some things you might not know" both by my actions and my words (verbal or electronic)Yet sadly, the vast majority of the time hearts and minds are not open. I long for the day when that conversation can happen.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011 at 10:41 PM

Karen S said:

My daughter has been an American Heritage Girl for four years, and she loves it. AHG promotes family, love of country, service to community, and especially, a reverence toward God. Our family wholeheartedly supports this fine organization.

Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 3:53 AM

p3orion in Midland, Georgia said:

"I also am possessed of the condition (resulting from a birth defect) of transsexualism."TammyBeth - Obviously there will always be among us a sexual spectrum of people that will include homosexuals and lesbians, as well as transgendered individuals. You yourself consider your condition the result of a birth defect, and I expect few thinking and compassionate Christians would have any objection to you on that basis alone. Furthermore, I think few conservatives really object to LGBT persons living their lives as they see fit.I think that what causes the cultural disputes on these issues is the liberal insistence not on "tolerance" (which we will readily give) but the celebration of (and acceptance as normal) conditions which clearly are NOT the biological norm. Indeed, there are probably activists who would decry your reference to your condition as a "defect" at all. LGBT activists argue that their orientation is normal for them, and search for scientific studies pointing to the existence of a so-called "gay gene," but in the end, the question is moot: just because something has a biological basis does not mean it is normal or even unobjectionable. Diabetes, sickle-cell anemia, and schizophrenia are all have a genetic component, but no one (so far) argues that they are "normal" for those who have them, or that they should not be treated when possible. Much less would anyone argue for celebration of those who have those conditions as a separate culture; compare this with the California legislature, which recently voted to require public schools to pointedly study gay history, and outlawed any classroom discussion of the many negative aspects of homosexuality. This is no more sensible than the story from a couple years ago concerning deaf parents who objected to their child having surgery that would cure her own deafness, who considered the procedure to be a rejection of the "rightness" of their condition, and instead wanted her to grow up in the "deaf community."A man who, because of some genetic or medical condition over which he has no control, is only four feet tall, is unsuited for a career as a pro basketball player. No one would judge his character on the basis of his height, but were he to insist that he be given a job as a basketball player anyway, and that schools set aside a month for "Short People History," and that dwarfism be celebrated as normal in the media and culture, people would sensibly object. Similarly, many people still reject the notion that homosexuality is "normal," and do not feel that they can be suitable role models for teens in the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts.I consider myself a conservative with libertarian tendencies. Those libertarian impulses mean I really don't give a damn what people do with their genitals or with who, as long as they "keep it off the streets and don't scare the horses." THAT's tolerance. But that does NOT mean that I will accept every lifestyle as "normal," and I will fight mightily to keep anyone from teaching my children otherwise.

Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 2:36 PM

TammyBeth said:

Well I would suggest that such activism (much of which I do not argue for) derives from the confrontational nature of the disagreement. to use your dwarf example, no one in our generation argues that the dwarf is a sinner living a perverse life who needs to repent thereof. That sort of confrontational, antagonistic, and condemning attitude from the church cannot help but produce an equally extreme and adamant reaction on the part of those so judged (which in turn provokes more passion from the church and so forth)It also pays to remember that just as the everyday conservative Christian loathes to be identified with or understood in the context of Fred Phelps or of the street preacher with the megaphone seeking out and harassing gay people, so the average gay person really has no interest in being judged by the passionate activist or the leather wearing dude with the whip in the pride parade.The great majority simply want to live their life in peace and enjoy the same opportunities and rights and respect as any other person has. That's certainly better than it used to be, but it's a long way from where it ought to be.I'll readily acknowledge that the "in your face" tactics are not at all helpful, even when I understand the temptation. But I also insist that if you want the everyday gay person to look past the minority of Christians who are "in their face" with their bigotry, then by the same token you have an obligation to overlook the more "in your face" element of gay activism as not representative of the gay couple down the street. I do want to take the time to address the usage, not just by you but in the common parlance of these discussions, of the word "normal"There is a distinct difference in how that word may be used depending on the context. there is the moralistic context - "It's not normal for that boy to be peeping at his sister" or whatever, a matter of judgement. There's the statistical science context - "it's not normal for a person to have violet eyes" - this has no moral component, it's merely an understanding of the statistical occurrence. One could as easily say it's not normal to have an IQ of 150Then there's the context of "a thing which happens in nature, however rare" - that is, a child being born blind is a normal occurrence in the sense that we understand that it does happen from time to time, on the other hand, if a child is born with antenna on their head and wings, this is NOT "normal" - because it's not something that ever happens.If I - or most of us trans people or gay people - say "this thing is perfectly normal" it is in the third context that we are sometimes speaking. That is, it falls into the category of "stuff happens" It is not some freakish thing no one has ever seen before.Just as the child who's born autistic is not a statistically normal occurrence but is nevertheless understood by society as an example of a divergence from the statistical norm of a sort which normally happens from time to time, in like manner, so is the transsexual. you should not react to the latter any more negatively than the former. Clearly it is not a statistical norm and no one on either side of the issue would suggest that - in the statistical science sense, we are absolutely "abnormal" - but then, so is Albert Pujols or Stephen Hawking.What provokes the reaction you note though, is those who use normal in the first sense I described. when a gay person says "this is normal" he is usually not speaking either of statistical science or the third sense I described above - rather he is reacting naturally to the charge that he is abnormal in the moral sense. that he is perverted, or deviant, or an abomination. Many of the most unfortunately vocal Christians say "that's not normal" in the moralizing sense and it's perfectly understandable that one so judged would retort that they are, in point of fact, quite normal. That is, that there life is not one of notorious sin (if the believe in the concept of sin) or that the moral code used to condemn them is not valid (they don't believe in the bible or the idea of sin).I don't think either side will completely retreat to sensible and respectful language unless both sides do and I hope you can agree with me that there's no prospect at all that the Linda Harveys of the world are dialing back anytime soon.Though I am running long, I can't ignore the last sentence. what would you have your children believe about homosexual or transsexual people?If I were their teacher, I would teach them that these people have a physical condition which makes their brains operate in a way different than most people's. that medically they are not normal in exactly the same sense that their disabled friends are not medically normal, but that they are also not "crazy" or "sick" or acceptable targets for mistreatment. that they, just as any other person who's body works differently, deserves the right to live their life in a way that makes them happy and that even when we don't understand, we should still respect. I'm not sure what's so controversial about that. It might well be that within your home or church you dispute that it is inborn and you believe that it is sin, and that's your right to believe and to communicate to your child. But it's not your right to expect a public school to communicate a theological position, or to lay aside what we can learn from science out of fear of contradicting it.Ultimately, if you cannot stand the idea that your theology doesn't dominate, then that's what private and homeschool is for. I homeschooled my kids, so I'm a person who takes their own advice.

Friday, November 11, 2011 at 2:27 AM

Army Officer (Ret) said:

TammyBeth wrote, "But it's not your right to expect a public school to communicate a theological position, or to lay aside what we can learn from science out of fear of contradicting it.Ultimately, if you cannot stand the idea that your theology doesn't dominate, then that's what private and homeschool is for. I homeschooled my kids, so I'm a person who takes their own advice."If public schools will not conform to the sensibilities of the parents, and your solution is for parents (whose taxes pay for those schools) to pay AGAIN for private or home schooling, then schools should fore-go the money those parents pay to support the public schools.I'll go even one better than that: how about all parents (and only parents) pay for whatever educational venue they want for their children? That way NOBODY has to pay for services they don't want or don't use.You want to teach Spontaneous Generation and call it "Science?" Go ahead - they do that in every public school in the country - but do it on your dime. Don't then insist that Christian parents (or ANY scientifically-literate parent) pay taxes to support that AND pay for a private school that teaches things that are, you know, true.The argument that public schools are somehow "neutral" is nonsense on stilts anyway. It is IMPOSSIBLE to teach any subject without an existential framework in which the "verities" of the subject reside. All such frameworks are philosophical. Why do liberals and atheists get to declare their philosophical framework to be the "neutral" one, and insist that everybody else conform to them or pay for public schools that teach what they want with their taxes AND private schools with their own money if they want something else for their children?

Sunday, November 13, 2011 at 1:30 AM

Liz Hughes said:

Just a question. Did you even take the time to look at all of the speakers? This seems like a very one-sided article where you are trying to make Girl Scouts sound like they have somehow taken their message and distorted it with a political agenda when clearly the political agenda of this writer is standing out. Everyone should take the time to read about all of the speakers. There is a gospel singer, a childrens choir, Country singer, teen scouts, military, ceos, basketball players, etc. None of these individuals were pointed out in attempt to bash girl scouts in their decision to offer a wide array of Women for young girls to look up. Girl Scouts has always sent a message of Girl Power and whether people want to admit it or not, Girls come in all different shapes, sizes, backgrounds, & beliefs.

Monday, November 14, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Jill said:

Annise Parker, Mayor of Houston, Colorado Girl Scout, Marlee Matlin, Swanee Hunt and all that support this "NEW" Girl Scouts. You have broken promises to all the girls you once sought to serve.SHAME ON YOU!Up with "American Heritage Girl" and down with the "NEW" Girl Scouts! The christians and folks I know don't support the cookies or any other fund raiser the "NEW" Girl Scouts put out. American's, wake up and smell the coffee!

Monday, November 14, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Elessar said:

I wish to express my appreciation to Army Officer (Ret) and to TammyBeth, for the intelligent, honorable, and respectful interchange between them. Clearly two individuals with strong beliefs, strong evidence, and strong convictions. While I agree totally with AT(R)'s arguments in regard to education, I feel equally valid are the arguments by TB regarding the issue of normal. We all have our 'feelings' about what is normal, and often we have 'scientific' evidence to support our position. The conclusion that I draw from this exchange is the one that supports my basic and simple libertarian belief in not imposing your beliefs on others. If we would only just live and let live in matters such as these we would have a much better time of it in this world. If your 'predispositon' is towards being LGBT, then live that life, and leave me alone in regard to it. And if my 'predisposition' is toward man/woman relationships, then leave me alone to work out those arrangements without your moralizing and interference. We all make mistakes, and in doing must pay whatever the 'price' is for cleaning up the mess we make. Once done, then move on.I leave you to lead your life as you see fit, as long as you abide by leaving me to live mine as well. All too often, if we just minded our own business, and didn't try to 'improve' things in someone elses life, we would all lead more productive and happier lives.RJA

Monday, November 14, 2011 at 8:20 PM

Elessar said:

I meant to include 'p3orion' in my commendation as well.RJA

Monday, November 14, 2011 at 8:23 PM