John Holdren

Obama science czar John Holdren stated in a college textbook that compulsory, government-mandated “green abortions” would be a constitutionally acceptable way to control population growth and prevent ecological disasters, including global warming, because a fetus was most likely not a “person” under the terms of the 14th Amendment.

Holdren further suggested government-mandated population control measures might be inflicted in the United States against welfare recipients, writing on page 840: “There has been considerable talk in some quarters at times of forcibly suppressing reproduction among welfare recipients (perhaps by requiring the use of contraceptives or even by involuntary sterilizations). This may sadly foreshadow what our society might do if the human predicament gets out of hand.” (Parenthesis in original text.)

As previously reported, WND has obtained a copy of the 1970s college textbook “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment” that Holdren co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich’s wife, Anne. The authors argued involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by “climate change.”

“The Audacity of Deceit,” and learn about the looming hostile attack on
Judeo-Christian values and freedoms Americans hold dear

Writing on page 839 of the textbook, the authors state: “The common law and drafters of the U.S. Constitution did not consider a fetus a human being. Feticide was not murder in common law because the fetus was not considered to be a human being, and for purposes of the Constitution a fetus is probably not a ‘person’ within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus under the constitution, abortion is apparently not unlawful, although infanticide obviously is.”

In the next sentence, the authors continued to insist that this “is a very important distinction, particularly since most rights, privileges, and duties in our society are dated from birth and not from some earlier point in time.”

On page 760, the authors categorically state that from the point of view of biology, “a fetus is only a potential human being, with no particular rights.” (Italics in the original text.)

And, again: “To most biologists, an embryo or a fetus is no more a complete human being than a blueprint is a complete building.”

The authors further insist that because “the moment of birth is easier to ascertain than the moment of conception, implantation, or quickening,” constitutional rights should begin only at birth: “Such an easily ascertainable point in time [the moment of birth] is a sensible point from which to date Constitutional rights, which should not depend on imprecisions.”

As WND has previously reported, Holdren has argued the U.S. Constitution would permit compulsory birth control methods, including involuntary abortions, government-imposed sterilizations and laws limiting the number of children permitted to be born as steps justified under the banner of “sustainable well-being.”

State-funded sterilizations

On page 715, the authors stated a central thesis of the textbook: “The maximum size the human population can attain is determined by the physical capacity of the Earth to support people.”

The authors argued that a federal statute should be enacted to prohibit “any restrictions on safe, voluntary contraception, sterilization, and abortion, and the dissemination of information about them” because “legalized abortions can contribute to a reduction in birth rates.”

To advance the population control agenda, the authors also suggested the following measures:

  • State and federal governments should subsidize voluntary contraception, sterilization and abortion; laws should require birth-control clinics be opened at public expense in “all suitable locations”;

  • Group and individual health insurance policies should cover the costs of abortion and sterilization; tax laws should provide incentives for late marriage;
  • Tax disadvantages for single, childless persons should be eliminated; state and federal laws should make sex education, including instruction about contraception, mandatory in schools;
  • Government should sponsor public education programs designed to encourage people to want fewer children;
  • Federal support and encouragement should be increased to provide for the development of more effective birth-control drugs and devices.

Still, the authors acknowledged, even these measures may not be enough to prevent ecological disaster resulting from over-population.

“If these relatively uncoercive policies should fail to maintain a low American birth rate, more coercive laws might well be written,” the authors wrote on page 840.

Population growth and global warming

In a 2001 article entitled “The Energy Climate Challenge: Issues for the New U.S. Administration,” Holdren noted world population estimates for 2100 ranged between 7 billion to 11 billion people.

He argued it was important to strive for “a result near the low end of these possibilities” because the difference between these two figures in terms of the ease or difficulty of achieving a low-carbon-emission future “is immense.”

To make sure global population remained near the low end of the 2100 estimates, Holdren once again returned to the theme of manipulating human fertility through a variety of methods, including “government incentives for small families.”

As WND previously reported, a worldwide scientific agenda is emerging to link global population growth with global warming, arguing that climate change is such a severe crisis that the U.S. must participate in a United Nations mandate to implement global birth control to reduce carbon emissions.

A series of papers recently published by the Royal Society in Great Britain and by the United Nations have directly made the link between global population growth and anthropogenic, or man-made global warming.

The Economist summed up the current argument, writing on Monday, “A world with fewer people would emit less greenhouse gas.”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.