Obama's so-called "science czar" John Holdren goes beyond environmental extremist notions that "responsible" citizens should limit their family sizes, into the realm of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization.

Here are a few excerpts from a book that Holdren wrote with Paul and Anne Ehrlich. The book is called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment and although it was written in 1977, Zombietime notes that Holdren has never denounced the things he wrote at that time so it stands to reason that he still holds these beliefs:

"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

Forced abortion?! Whatever happened to a woman's "right to choose"? Whatever happened to "my body, my choice"? Oh... well, as long as it's for the "greater good," right?

"One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption — especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. ... It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society."

Oh look! So women might be given some choices... have your baby forcibly taken by the government and given to someone else, get married, or we're back to forced abortion. Wow, how thoughtful of the totalitarian regime to offer some choices after all.

Then again, this guy has thought of everything. The whole notion of forced abortion doesn't necessarily have to happen if we have forced sterilization, right?

"The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."

It just gets more and more disturbing. He thinks the government has the right to decide who can and who cannot have children. Anyone who gets pregnant outside of that "approval process" would be subject to having their child forcibly taken from them, or being forced to kill their own child. I can't even begin to tell you how outraged I am by this whole notion. And again, this is the person that president of the United States as appointed as his personal science advisor. As such, he is in a position to make recommendations to the president. And these are his beliefs when it comes to "reproductive health" as the liberals are calling it these days.

But wait, there's more... implanting and removing "sterilization capsules" could be costly and time-consuming. Isn't there a more cost-efficient way to force sterilization on the masses?

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. ... To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock."

No mention of ethical or moral problems here, but extensive discussion on the logistical challenges. I mean, it's one thing to subject an entire population to involuntary sterilization (presumably without their knowledge or consent), but we wouldn't want to have any side-effects to livestock.

In the event that they decide to grant you permission to have children, such "rights" would be limited.

"In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?"

Really?! Are you kidding me?! How is it anyone's concern other my husband, myself, and God how many children we bring into our family? Whatever happened to keeping government out of the bedroom?

Apparently anyone who is not on board with such suggestions is a... racist?

"Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups... Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all."

Hmm... now this strikes me as interesting. It would never occur to me to have children on the basis of making sure my "social or ethnic group" isn't "outbred" by another. The fact that it does occur to Holdren is telling. I mean, many of his ilk are already limiting their family size to two or less children for any number of reasons (and although they have absolutely NO right to force such choices on the rest of us they are well within their rights to determine what size family is best for them). But after I read his comments on that topic, I wonder if it is actually he and others who think like him who feel the need to limit the family size of others in order to keep from being "outbred" by others who don't share their ideology. After all, we wouldn't want to let "pronatalist attitudes" (translation: the notion that babies are good) become too common.

Sigh. As if all this isn't bad enough, Holdren doesn't just want the U.S. government making these decisions for us. He wants an international "planetary regime" to be in charge.

"The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits."

This man is frightening beyond words, and what he proposes is no less than a brutal totalitarian regime that has absolutely no place in a country that has for 200+ years been the beacon of freedom and liberty to the world. The fact that he has the president's ear and the ability to push for such policies is all the more cause for alarm.

Read full post >>

A few months ago, I came across this article:

Couples who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming.

.....

Porritt, who has two children, intends to persuade environmental pressure groups to make population a focus of campaigning.

...

Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.

Gee, do you think it's a coincidence that the number of "permissable" children according to this guy just happens to be the same number of children that he has?

This was the first time I had really thought about the connection between the global warming alarmists and the pro-abortion crowd, but upon reading this it made sense. If the far-left crazies think that abortion is necessary to "save the planet" then of course they will do everything they can to make abortion seem "acceptable" in mainstream society. After all, how can one encourage everyone to do something that they find repulsive? You do it in stages. First you try to convince everyone that abortion is perfectly ok. Then you have a socially "acceptable" solution to offer when you start telling people they need to limit their family size, to whatever the so-called "experts" say it should be.

Then abortion becomes not just ok, but it's for the "greater good." After all, anyone who doesn't choose to limit their family size is being "irresponsible" and selfish.

It's reprehensible. It would be easy enough to write this guy off as a quack but in fact he chairs the UK Sustainable Development Commission. As such he is in a position of some influence obviously in England, but to some extent here in the United States as well given our own government's (the liberals anyway) love affair with everything European and desire to follow them even if it means following them off a cliff.

Although Mr. Porritt keeps his suggestions in the realm of voluntary limitation of family size, it doesn't take a genius to see that others might continue the slide down that slippery slope and suggest forcing the matter, all in the name of the common good. It's not unprecedented. Consider China's "one child" limit - enforced in part through forced abortions. Again, easier to accomplish if society has been adequately convinced that abortion is acceptable.

Read full post >>