This article is the second in a series examining the views of Dr. John Holdren, the Obama-Biden administration’s Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and his controversial book ‘Ecoscience: population, resources, environment.’ Read the previous article in the series here.
(LifeSiteNews) – One of the Obama-Biden administration’s top policy advisors proposed a two-child limit per family, contemplated legalizing “compulsory abortion,” and said that the “survival of human society” may depend on imposing “direct population control measures” in developing countries.
In a book he co-authored titled Ecoscience: population, resources, environment, Dr. John Holdren, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy from March 2009 to January 2017, and his colleagues explored a raft of policies designed to suppress birth rates around the globe – with or without citizens’ consent or knowledge.
As chief science advisor to the Obama-Biden administration, Holdren was responsible for advising and/or helping to make national security, homeland security, health, foreign relations, environmental, and other laws and policies for the U.S. government, as explained in the previous article in this series.
This article presents a more in-depth discussion of Ecoscience’s proposals for population control, including coercive state-backed policies. The year of publication may or may not be relevant; at least some of the plans mentioned in the book (for example, increasing the price of gas and/or energy to manipulate people to not use it) are apparently currently being enacted by liberals in the U.S. federal government.
‘Lowering birth rates’
Before going into the specific statements published by Dr. Holdren and his colleagues in Ecoscience: population, resources, environment, it is necessary to mention that a popular online “encyclopedia” is currently publishing false information regarding statements Dr. Holdren made during a U.S. Senate Committee hearing before being confirmed as the Obama-Biden Administration’s Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The encyclopedia falsely claims that during his Senate testimony, Dr. Holdren says that he “never endorsed forced sterilization.” Again, the encyclopedia’s claim is false.
Dr. Holdren does not say that he “never endorsed forced sterilization” during his testimony during the U.S. Senate hearing. In fact, his statements on climate change, his belief that human beings cause climate change, and his belief that climate change continues to accelerate at a dangerous rate (58:40-1:00:39, 1:56:00-2:06:20; partial transcript), combined with his suggestion that it is easier for the government to solve problems when government policies have the effect of lowering birth rates (2:02:50-2:03:25) potentially suggest that he and others may still support many of the statements on government forced population control from Ecoscience: population, resources, environment which were mentioned above and more which will be elaborated on in a moment.
Specifically, Dr. Holdren is asked, “You think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?” and Dr. Holdren responds,
No, Senator, I do not. And I did not, certainly, intend that to be the implication of that sentence. The sentence means only what it says, which is that people who have thought about these matters come out in different places. I think the proper role of government is to develop and deploy the policies with respect to economy, environment, security, that will ensure the well being of the citizens we have. I also believe that many of those policies will have the effect, and have had the effect in the past, of lowering birth rates. Because when you provide health care for women, opportunities for women, education, people tend to have smaller families on average. And it ends up being easier to solve some of our other problems when that occurs.
Dr. Holdren first claims that he does not think it is the role of the government to determine “optimal” population. The specific word there is “optimal.” That does not mean that he and other government officials do not support government forced population control (which may include covert/secret population control methods) through government laws and other policies.
In the Senate testimony, Dr. Holdren proceeds by appearing to imply that “the proper role of government” is to develop and deploy policies (including “security” policies) which “ensure the well being of the citizens we have” – and may lower birth rates. He concludes clearly by claiming that lower birth rates make it easier for the government to solve problems; the concluding sentence appears to suggest his previous sentences meant that it is, or may be, the proper role of government to lower birth rates through government policies.
In other words, Dr. Holdren’s Senate testimony not only does not deny supporting forced sterilization, but it could be interpreted to mean that he believed the government should enact laws and/or policies which lower the birth rate to make it “easier [for the government] to solve some of [the government’s] other problems.” Also, it cannot be elaborated on here, but several of his statements on government action to prevent the so-called point of no return of what he (probably wrongly) believed to be climate change caused by human beings may suggest a sort of desperation. Reducing the number of human beings in the world may be implied in such desperation.
Sterilants in drinking water?
Some may have heard of the plans for population control in America and the rest of the world discussed in Dr. Holdren’s Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. The book is approximately 1,000 pages and there are so many examples of potentially harmful plans or suggestions for U.S. government policy that even in this extended article not all of them can be mentioned.
One significant quote includes the suggestion in Chapter 13 to put sterilants, potentially secretly, in drinking water or food:
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. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. 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. (Pages 787-788)
Dr. Holdren and his colleagues then write that the reason they may be opposed to putting sterilants in drinking water or food is due to the potential “serious” side effects. Dr. Holdren and his colleagues write:
Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children. (Page 788)
Notice that the authors write, “in our opinion,” which suggests that Dr. Holdren’s opinion was included. They apparently oppose sterilants in drinking water because of the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects” – not because doing so is contrary to freedom and not because doing so would likely require secrecy and lying by the government. Their statements appear to imply that if a new population control sterilant is developed without “serious” side effects, then they may support sterilants in drinking water or food. (Pages 787-788) Notably, they also write that “new technologies must be developed…for population control.” (Page 927)
Furthermore, they suggest that
Survival of human society nevertheless seems likely to require the imposition of direct population control measures beyond family planning in most LDCs [less developed countries]. (Page 789)
“Imposition of population control” means forceful population control imposed by the government. Dr. Holdren and his colleagues here supported the “likely” requirement of governments forcing population control in most “less-developed countries” for the “survival of human society.” That is a strong statement. Keep in mind that Dr. Holdren, a major contributor to the “major policies, plans, and programs of the Federal government” during the Obama-Biden Administration apparently supported the “likely” forceful population control through the use of government for the “survival of human society.”
‘Coercive’ population control in America
Dr. Holdren and his colleagues also wrote:
If these relatively uncoercive policies should fail to maintain a low American birth rate, more coercive laws might well be written (see Chapter 13 for examples). At the moment, there might be little justification or public support for such laws, but if the resource and environmental situations are allowed to deteriorate, popular support might develop rapidly. 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 sterilization). This may sadly foreshadow what our society might do if the human predicament gets out of hand. […] but we must reiterate that the United States and most other DCs are still a long way from zero population growth. (Page 839)
Thus, Dr. Holdren and his colleagues clearly support the potential use of coercive population control laws in America. They appear to imply that such coercive laws may be necessary if the United States does not arrive at “zero population growth.”
Notably, the United States had not arrived at “zero population growth” before Dr. Holdren’s and the Obama-Biden administration’s time in government. Interestingly, though, from 2010-2020, which was mostly during Dr. Holdren’s and the Obama-Biden Administration’s time in government, “the U.S. registered the second-lowest decade growth in its history,” and recently reportedly nearly achieved Dr. Holdren’s apparent goal of “zero population growth.” (Some of the opinions of the previously cited articles are not endorsed.)
Simply look at the graphical depiction of the decline in population growth during Dr. Holdren’s and the Obama-Biden Administration’s time in the U.S. federal government. Even liberal entities describe the decline as “unprecedented.” (It could be merely a coincidence that during and soon after Dr. Holdren’s time in government that zero population growth was nearly achieved. Of course, who could prove the use of advanced technologies if they were covertly being used on Americans?)
Obama advisor’s radical anti-life proposals
Finally, on potentially supporting forced abortion by the U.S. government, Dr. Holdren and his colleagues suggested:
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? (Page 837)
The impact of laws and policies on population size and growth has, until very recently, largely been ignored by the legal profession. […]
To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. 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. […]
To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people. But there are other sound reasons that support the use of law to regulate reproduction. […]
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 – just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource consumption patterns – providing they are not denied equal protection. (Pages 837-838)
Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. […] Where the society has a “compelling, subordinating interest” in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed. (Pages 837-838)
Now, it is important to mention again that the aforementioned quotes are directly from a book written by Dr. Holdren who was already given several years of authority to help make U.S. federal government policies. In the above quotations, notice that Dr. Holdren and his colleagues apparently believed the U.S. Constitution supports forced abortion, which is the forced murder of pre-born human beings. (The authors apparently did not believe a pre-born human being is a human being.)
Dr. Holdren and his colleagues apparently do not mention whether government “compulsory abortion” would be covert/secret through the use of abortion causing chemicals in water, food, injections, etc. which make it appear as though government compulsory aborted pregnancies were miscarriages. However, if government officials are evil enough to arrive at the conclusion that the Constitution supports compulsory abortion, would they have any problem doing those compulsory abortions secretly?
And keep in mind what Dr. Holdren and his colleagues give as a reason for compulsory abortion: “To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people” and “if some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children … they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility.”
Dr. Holdren, a former law and policy maker for the Obama-Biden Administration apparently believed that U.S. law – the U.S. government – could be used to force “individuals who contribute to general social deterioration” not to reproduce. Does this again imply at least the possibility of covert/secret population control by the government?
Dave Rubin (left) hosts one of the most popular conservative chat-shows on YouTube, but we now know his views are as extreme as many on the left.
Not only are Rubin and his homosexual partner using surrogate mothers to bear two babies, thus deliberately depriving the children of their true mothers' care once born, but he also admitted those babies would have been aborted if found to have severe disabilities.
SIGN the petition telling Dave Rubin that true conservatives protect life and uphold the right of children to be raised by their mothers.
Mr. Rubin recently said he also supports abortion up until 12 weeks, compounding the regrettable pro-eugenics stance he has taken towards unborn babies with severe disabilities.
There are few things more tragic in our world today than the disposable attitude of many people towards innocent human life, but that is exactly what Rubin thinks is acceptable.
This must be called out - it's simply abhorrent to treat the disabled, the unwanted, and the vulnerable with such callous disregard.
Tell Dave Rubin that his pro-eugenics views have no place in a humane society.
Can you imagine finding out your parents would have aborted you if you had a severe disability?
Well, that's unfortunately what will happen to the children Rubin raises if they someday read his latest book, "Don't Burn This Country".
There he shares that he and his family's decision would have been to "terminate the pregnancy" if a severe disability was found in one of the babies now being borne by their surrogate mothers.
Rubin must understand how cruel this entire situation is, not only for the mothers and their children who will be taken away, but also for disabled people to know they are essentially thought of as "lives unworthy of life."
Real conservatives must speak up now and tell Rubin that his pro-abortion views are abhorrent.
Mr. Rubin's public split with the left is to be welcomed, but "conservative" leaders like him will do much more harm than good if they continue using their platform to undermine the family and the right of children to be born.
If we let these cornerstones of society be attacked from within, what hope have we of building a culture we can be proud to hand on?
Make a stand today for unborn children and their mothers - tell Dave Rubin that he's wrong.
True conservatives cannot afford to take the easy shortcut of ignoring Rubin's cruel position, lest we continue to be shunted further left, becoming radical liberals in everything but name.
So, please SIGN and SHARE this petition today,
Why are leading conservatives congratulating Dave Rubin and his 'husband'? - LifeSiteNews
Dave Rubin says he'd ask his surrogate to abort any disabled child - The Bridgehead
**Main Image: YouTube screenshot of Dave Rubin talking to Donald Trump Jr.**
Also, it is necessary to refer to the previous quote from his Senate testimony in which he does not deny that the government should use laws and other policies to forcibly control population. Again, his Senate testimony appears, at minimum, to imply that he supports government laws and policies which reduce reproduction of American citizens.
It is again significant that most, if not all, of the previous quotations from Dr. Holdren and his colleagues along with more quotes appear to suggest that Dr. Holdren may support using government laws and other policies for secret and/or covert population control. The purpose of putting such sterilant chemicals or other sterilant technologies in drinking water or food appears to be that citizens would likely not know that they are consuming those sterilant chemicals or technologies.
If the government planned on forcibly sterilizing people without being secret about it, the government would simply force everyone to get their monthly sterilizing injection or pill and say, “this injection and this pill that we are forcing you to take is for population control because you are contributing to general social deterioration.” Also, if it was publicly known that there were sterilants in drinking water or food, then someone would probably develop a technology which filters or disables the sterilants, or the water or food would be avoided.
Thus, Dr. Holdren and his colleagues’ suggestion to put sterilants in drinking water or other chemicals appears to imply secret or covert government action. And again, Dr. Holdren and his colleagues appear to reject such an idea simply because of the potential “serious” side effects; the statement appears to imply that if the side effects weren’t so “serious,” then they may support such government actions.
In other words, does it seem likely that Dr. Holdren supported the possibility of coercive and secret population control policies in the United States if the United States did not achieve “zero population growth?” Another question that cannot be discussed is, if Dr. Holdren supported the secret use of sterilants in food or drinking water, what other substances or advanced technologies might he and/or others support the secret use of in drinking water, foods, or government-required injections?
It is an important subject that cannot be emphasized enough but cannot be completely discussed here: the use of secrecy and/or covert operations by U.S. government officials on American citizens.