Starbucks Contributes to Planned Parenthood

I continue to NOT BUY FROM STARBUCKS.
Many people do not know that they contribute to Planned Parenthood.

Once I learned that they contribute to Planned Parenthood I experienced a rude but quick awakening to the fact that anything purchased from them was a donation in my name to help fund abortions. I cannot stomach that.

It may not be possible to know or avoid all companies that contribute to unethical organizations . . . but this is one example of a choice that is truly in my control.

Recently a student of mine challenged me on this info. The student came to me with the message that her parents did not believe the information I gave to the class.

I searched my sources to triple check that my info was up to date. I found only one (relatively unreliable) source that stated Starbucks no longer contributed to Planned Parenthood. Starbucks is still listed as a contributor at the Planned Parenthood website.

Here is the only source that I found stating Starbucks no longer contributed to PP. It is a response to a reader question over at EWTN.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just read an article in the All website written by Nicole Flusche titled "My Pro-life Barista." Has Starbucks stopped their involvement with planned parenthood? Please let me know what current news you have about Starbucks as soon as possible.
In Christ,
Connie
Answer by Judie Brown on 4/30/20
Dear Connie
Starbucks does not support Planned Parenthood any longer. This is according to *Life Decisions International corporate supporters of Planned Parenthood update.
Judie Brown
COPYRIGHT 2008
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that

1. Nicole Flusche's blog post talks about an experience with ONE Starbucks barista. As my friend Policraticus says, "I have a friend from Steubenville who is a barista who is very pro-life, very Catholic...that doesn't change the corporate decisions on 'charitable' contributions. Policraticus adds these points -
2. "Planned Parenthood still lists Starbucks as a gift matching donator, and until Planned Parenthood or Starbucks says otherwise, I'd say we have to believe that the financial connection remains.
   
3. EWTN forums are notoriously poor when it comes to social, economic and political information. The fact that Judie Brown does not even provide a link or article leads me to treat her claims as rather dubious."

* I tried to check out the Life Decisions International list but you had to purchase it! I did not do that. On the other hand, you can go straight to the PP site and check out their list.

Planned Parenthood (list of companies that match gifts from the official PP website)

Ecological, Social, and Spiritual Consequences

“Our personal consumer choices have ecological, social, and spiritual consequences. It is time to re-examine some of our deeply held notions that underlie our lifestyles.”

~David Suzuki
(Canadian environmentalist, scientist and broadcaster)

Pants v. Skirt or Dress Controversy

I read the post over at AWTY with great interest and curiosity (Pants v. Skirt or Dress Controversy). Coming from a dance background I have to admit I NEVER thought about this kind of thing. Quite honestly, I did not know it was even a concern . . . of any one's. I definitely saw the difference between provocative and modest attire. I figured you dressed for the task at hand and you kept modesty in mind (or not - depending on your values). I would never have thought that pants precluded modesty.

In the modern dance world the body is treated like a precious thing -- keeping it healthy and strong is paramount.
We could not do that in dresses. I lived in leotard and sweats unless I was performing and then perhaps some attire was chosen to add meaning or an interpretive element but NEVER to distract form the dance. (Think Graham and Pilobolus). When I had to go out into the real world I donned a sweatshirt and sweat pants or threw a skirt & shirt over my dance attire. When you dance literally 6 hours a day, have a baby daughter and teach 4 classes a day there IS NOT time to change into anything else. You attach baby to hip and GO!

Now that I teach at a conservative Catholic school all the female teachers are required to wear dresses. . . uhhm, except me. You see, I teach all the movement classes like, PE, Dance, Music and Movement, Music Garden and Kindermusic. Just before I sat down to write this I taught 3rd grade boys outside and we had a rousing game of kickball. I am on my way to teach Music and Movement to 3 year olds. . . .actually, I'd better go now.

WOW _ I am back & I got observed- that was a surprise. I think I did a stellar job considering there are 18 - count 'em 18! three year olds in that class and the aide was a sub who had not a clue how to help.
The learned routine did its magic even though

• this is the little ones's first day back to M&M after vacation
  
• there are 2 new students AND
  
• we added a new verse to a movement song

Whew! OK --as I was saying, or trying to say -- I could not have gotten up and down, caught kids on the balance beam, stopped the new little ones from straying and moved around like I have this morning in a dress. No way -- and if I had tried, it would NOT have seemed very modest.

I am currently wearing silky (roomy) running pants, an Izod style shirt and sneakers. I do not think you can make out any exclusively girl-like body parts (except for the breasts-- even with a bra and jog top they are still there). Next I teach technology class and will have a computer lab full of 6th graders ready to practice formatting and posting poetry on their blog. I do not have time to change -- and you know what? Kids would look at me funny if I did.

I guess I just don't get it. And, I think it is downright ridiculous for our PreK & elementary teachers to have to wear dresses or skirts. Every time they stoop down there is lots of fabric billowing around. If they move their foot they trip trying to stand up because they have just stepped on their hem. A couple of teachers wear, shorter closer fitting skirts and that looks downright sexy. That really defeats the idea of "modesty."

I think it is whole lot easier to see a man's physique through pants than a woman's. I just think it is rather silly -- the whole opinion that pants on a woman are inappropriate. Modesty can be attained in either form of clothing. I believe that pants on a woman do not preclude modesty. In fact, sometimes they just make better sense!