Holdren says Constitution backs compulsory abortion

Argued in writings: ‘Quality of life demands fewer people’

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

John Holdren

Obama science czar John Holdren stated in a college textbook he co-authored that in conditions of emergency, compulsory abortion would be sustainable under the U.S. Constitution, even with Supreme Court review.

WND has obtained a copy of “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,” published in 1977 and co-authored by Holdren with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich’s wife, Ann. As WND reported, 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.”

To prevent ecological disasters, including “global warming,” Holdren argued the U.S. Constitution would permit involuntary abortions, government-imposed sterilizations and laws limiting the number of children as steps justified under the banner of “sustainable well-being.”

‘Warming’ result of too many people

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 United States must participate in a United Nations mandate to implement global birth control in order to reduce carbon emissions.

Addressing the U.N. climate summit in New York yesterday, President Obama declared climate change resulting from global warming could leave future generations with an “irreversible catastrophe.”

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

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

“World experts, in a wide range of disciplines, explore the ways in which the inexorable increase in human numbers is exhausting conventional energy supplies, accelerating environmental pollution and Global Warming, and providing an increasing number of Failed States where civil unrest prevails,” wrote Roger V. Short of the faculty of Medicine, Dentistryand Health Sciences at the University of Melbourne, introducing the series of articles in the current issue of Philosophical Transactions published by the Royal Society.

Constitutional mandate for abortion

Arguing that “ample authority” exists to regulate population growth, Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote on page 837 of their 1970s textbook that “under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

In the next sentence, the authors were careful to note that few in the U.S. in the 1970s considered the situation serious enough to justify compulsion.

Still, in the next paragraph, the authors advanced their key point: “To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people.”

The authors of “Ecoscience” argued that a “legal restriction on the right to have more than a given number of children” could be crafted under the U.S. Constitution in crisis situations under the standard that “law has as its proper function the protection of each person and each group of persons.”

On page 838, the authors argued, “The law could properly say to a mother that, in order to protect the children she already has, she could have no more.”

To justify the point, the authors commented “differential rates of reproduction between ethnic, racial, religious, or economic groups might result in increased competition for resources and political power and thereby undermine social order.”

The authors continued their constitutional analysis of government-mandated population control measures by writing: “If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns – provided they are not denied equal protection.” (Italics in the original text.)

Recognizing the politically charged nature of the subject, Holdren has attempted to disavow his 1970s views that compulsory government-mandated birth control measures may be today necessary.

A Global Warming Emergency

An analysis of Holdren’s current statements on global warming strongly suggest the president’s science czar sees global warming creating an environmental emergency.

“The air and the oceans are warming, mountain glaciers are disappearing, sea ice is shrinking, permafrost is thawing, the great land ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are showing signs of instability and sea level is rising,” Holdren testified to the Senate’s Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation July 30.

Holdren told the Senate that the cause of these perils was human-generated carbon dioxide emissions.

“It is the emission of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants from our factories, our vehicles, and our power plants, and from use of our land in ways that move carbon from soils and vegetation into the atmosphere in the form of C02,” he told the Senate.

He warned of dire consequences: “And the consequences for human well-being are already being felt: more heat waves, floods, droughts, and wildfires; tropical diseases reaching into the temperate zones; vast areas of forest destroyed by pest outbreaks linked to warming; alterations in patterns of rainfall on which agriculture depends; and coastal property increasingly at risk from the surging seas.”

And, again: “Devastating increases in the power of the strongest hurricanes, sharp drops in the productivity of farms and ocean fisheries, a dramatic acceleration of species extinctions, and inundation of low-lying areas by rising sea level are among the possible outcomes.”

Sustainable well-being’

The St. Petersburg Times’ fact-check website, Politifact.com, argued that in his Senate confirmation hearings, Holdren disavowed “optimal population” targets, a central thesis of the 1970s textbook, as a proper role of government.

While Holdren may have abandoned “optimal population” targets as a principle of public policy, an address he gave as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, subsequently published in Science Magazine in January 2008, shows he has adopted instead the standard of “sustainable well-being” as a guiding principle that could be utilized to set targets for acceptable population growth.

In the article, Holdren listed “continuing population growth” as a hindrance to the goal of realizing “sustainable well-being,” a point Holdren supported by footnoting Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 book “The Population Bomb,” thereby linking his current thinking with his 1970s-era thinking.

In that footnote, Holdren wrote that the “elementary but discomforting truth” of Ehrlich’s 1968 book “may account for the vast amount of ink, paper, and angry energy that has been expended in vain to refute it.”

Holdren’s “sustainable well-being” appears to be a nearly identical concept to what is known as the United Nation’s “Agenda 21”, which articulates the concept of “sustainable development” that is currently institutionalized in the Division for Sustainable Development of the U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

Obama’s science czar does not support coercive population control, spokesman says

Washington D.C., Jul 15, 2009 / 06:08 am (CNA).- The office of President Obama’s “science czar” John Holdren has responded to concerns Holdren co-authored a book which allegedly contained comments supporting coercive population control measures. A spokesman for the department said that Holdren disavowed such policies at his confirmation hearing.

Holdren is currently Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

In 1977, he co-authored the 1,000 page book “Ecoscience” with Paul and Anne Ehrlich. The book included several descriptions of possible population control measures, including the addition of “sterilants” to the water supply to prevent human conception.

One section, titled “Population Law,” cited the radical group Zero Population Growth and said “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.”

“Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion, however.”

Another section discussed a “planetary regime” that 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.”

In Tuesday e-mails to CNA, Rick Weiss, the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s Director of Strategic Communications, said the material at issue was from “a three-decade-old, three-author textbook used in colleges to teach energy policy.”

He could “easily dismiss” fears that Dr. Holdren favors government control over population growth.

“He made that quite clear in his confirmation hearing,” Weiss said.

He then quoted a section of the confirmation transcript in which Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) asked Holdren whether he thinks “determining optimal population is a proper role of government.”

“No, Senator, I do not,” was Holdren’s reply, according to Weiss and a transcript of the proceedings.

In other remarks at the confirmation hearing, not cited by Weiss, Holdren told Sen. Vitter he no longer thinks it is “productive” to focus on the “optimum population” for the United States. “I don’t think any of us know what the right answer is.”

According to Weiss, Holdren “made clear that he did not believe in coercive means of population control” and is not an advocate for measures expressed in the book “and they are certainly not endorsed by this administration in any way.”

Weiss also provided CNA with a statement from the book’s other two authors, Paul and Anne Ehrlich.

The Ehrlichs said they had been “shocked” at what they called the “serious misrepresentation” of their and Holdren’s views.

“We were not then,  never have been, and are not now ‘advocates’ of the Draconian measures for population limitation described — but not recommended — in the book’s 60-plus small-type pages cataloging the full spectrum of population policies that, at the time, had either been tried in some country or analyzed by some commentator.”

Describing “Ecoscience” as a “textbook,” they said its descriptions can be “misrepresented as endorsement.”

Paul Ehrlich was the author of the 1968 bestselling book The Population Bomb, which predicted that massive famines in the 1970s would kill “hundreds of millions,” including Americans.

Coercive population control measures, including forced sterilizations and abortions, have been used in China’s one-child policy. In Peru in the 1990s, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the United Nations Population Fund provided support for what became an involuntary sterilization program which victimized an estimated 300,000 women.

Although I am NOT a fan of Jerome Corsi, It seems he wasn’t the only one who got the idea that this guy believes in this. Makes you think of the old adage…..”where there’s smoke, there’s fire”.  Funny thing is, I got the idea we elected a African-American to the White House but, it looks more and more like the guy living in it is a Chinese Communist.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: