Holdren: Sterilize Welfare Recipients

wnd.com ^ | September 23, 2009 | Jerome R. Corsi

[kellynla]

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, Ann. 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."

Get "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."

[SaraJohnson]

This was a very popular opinion amoung the left eugenics folks in the 80’s. Republicans and Democrats.

[airborne]

Does that include the politicians who are being paid by taxpayer money while doing nothing productive?

[wombtotomb]

I would also like to say that when the fed.gov stops sending young men and women to war, my husbands job will not be needed in the hospital he works in for them. Some gov workers are there for a reason. While I detest govt waste, someone has to be in the military, take care of the veterans, and other essential work. DOE on the other hand, can go!

[Mrs. Don-o]

OK!

[Salvation]

This guy is either nutz or has no heart!

[j-damn]

You’re not very adept at spotting sarcasm, are you.

[don-o]

Why don’t you ‘splain it to me?

[kellynla]

“This guy is either nutz or has no heart!”

or both!

[Netizen]

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.)

Given a choice, I'd rather see welfare recipients forced to use contraceptives or sterilized. At least they wouldn't be aborting babies. jmo

[wagglebee]

Pinged from Terri Dailies

[j-damn]

I don’t have time for remedial instruction.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Hey, sterilizing welfare recipients would be getting rid of the democrats voting majority in years to come. They won’t do that.

Once they get to that point they won't need voters. The poor idiots are the ones who voted them in but will be some of the first to go. So will the liberal journalists, not needed anymore.