Yeah, I really want to hear what makes birth control be on the same league of problematic than abortion.

I do concede that the Girl Scouts should be more honest about its stances, especially the screencapped page also states:

Placement of transgender youth is handled on a case-by-case basis, with the welfare and best interests of the child and the members of the troop/group in question a top priority. That said, if the child is recognized by the family and school/community as a girl and lives culturally as a girl, then Girl Scouts is an organization that can serve her in a setting that is both emotionally and physically safe.

However, I’d argue that the Girls Scouts are acting from a place of rational thinking and human decency. I trust them in accomindating transgender scouts humanly, while reassuring any parents or scouts that have objections.

Abortion is an understandable issue, since both sides take their beliefs from different premises.

But birth control? I need to brush up on the biblical basis and the Catholic precedence, but I bet it spawns from the beliefs that a) sex is for reproduction and b) underage sex and sex outside marriage is sinful.

The Archdiocese should look up the statistics on adolescence abstinence and see if that’s acceptable. (I will find the specific statistics if anyone is interested.)

It’s also worrying considering the many bishops who said that contraceptives are still not acceptable despite the Zika virus epidemic.

Reminder that the Girl Scouts are more progressive than the Boy Scouts.

http://lawstreetmedia.com/issues/entertainment-and-culture/boy-scouts-vs-girl-scouts-lgbt-policies-show-different-paths-modernization/

I do appreciate this statement that the final choice lays in the Catholic individual, as opposed to the Church having the final word. Faith is ultimately up a person to figure out.

However, I do worry about the pressure that St. Louis' Catholic churches will put on their congregations. I feel that a proper response to the archbishop’s pushback is for other Catholics to bring their concerns to them.

This is one of the page’s most appalling statements.

It reveals a misunderstanding of being transgender. It’s not a choice; it’s not a boy waking up one day thinking “I want to join the Girl Scouts!” It’s a girl, whose society has treated her as boy in years because of her body, who want to work together wbody other boys.

Until the archbishop sits down, talk with transgender people, and realize reality, I question that he actually has love and compassion toward the marginalized.

I also am open to any evidence that welcoming transgender girls into the problem would be “not healthy”.

The ambiguity of this sentence both bothers and amuses me.

As it stands, it parses as “both Taylor Swift and Donald Trump are giving gifts to Kesha – can this be stopped?”

However, stopping Trump and Kesha’s gift are two different stories. Trump isn’t giving money to Kesha, and no one (hopefully) thinks Swift’s gift should be stopped.

A better way to write this sentence is:

People are also talk also about Taylor Swift’s gift to Kesha also whether someone can stop Trump.

There’s still some ambiguity, but at least the whole “stop Taylor'sTaylod’s” interpretation is gone. That’s one issue with journalistic brevity.

Here’s a regular reminder that causation does not imply correlation. Just because police fatalites are up around the time of Beyoncé’s halftime performance doesn’t necessarily mean that she’s the cause, or even a factor.

It’s still wonderful to see the map in one color like this. Data (and love) is beautiful, indeed.