Aborting our children will not save the planet

(’76 Contributor) For decades, the words “family planning” have been a euphemism for “abortion” to abortion proponents. Echoing Humpty Dumpty, when the left “uses a word, it means just what [they] choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”

So, with twists in language, “homosexual behavior” is called “gay lifestyle,” “sex outside of marriage” is termed “freedom,” and “killing babies” is called “family planning.” Often, it seems, in an effort to add weight to the pro–abortion mantra, the left couples “family planning” with other leftist causes like “carbon footprint” or “saving the planet.”

A recent Denver Post opinion piece informed readers that “population [is] one of the major contributors to climate change and other environmental crises.” And if population is the problem, what did the editorial writer think the solution was? You guessed it: kill more babies … I mean, do more “family planning.” Therefore, the title of the op–ed in the Post was literally, “Family planning is a gift to planet.”

Written by Dottie Lamm, former first lady of Colorado and a member of the U.S. delegation to the U.N. Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1994, the op–ed sounds as though it was torn directly from eugenicist Margaret Sanger’s playbook, bemoaning the fact that some women continue to have more than two children apiece. (Lamm writes highly of the fact that women in China average only 1.5 childbirths, although she does not explicitly endorse the forced abortion policy Chinese women endure.)

According to Lamm, the prediction that the world’s current population of 7 billion will reach 9 billion by 2045 is of staggering consequence. She warns readers that “the pressures that an expanding population [will] put on global warming are enormous”—her argument being that adding that many people to the planet is equivalent to adding a carbon footprint equal to “two more United States.”

Lamm quotes a population/climate change researcher, who argues that if we cut the population gain to 8 billion instead of 9 billion by mid–century, we “could account for 16 to 19 percent of the emissions reductions thought necessary to keep global temperatures from causing serious impacts.”

In all fairness to Lamm, she’s not alone in her views that all things—even the lives of children—should be sacrificed in homage to planet earth. For example, in England, David and Victoria Beckham are currently being described as “selfish” for welcoming their fourth child into the world. There, Simon Ross, “chief executive of the Optimum Population Trust, an organization that campaigns for the ‘gradual decrease of the population to sustainable levels,’ said, ‘The Beckhams … are very bad role models with their large families.’”

So, apparently, the groups that are cajoling the Beckhams would be praising them if they’d only availed themselves of “family planning” and killed their child in the womb. That’s how twisted things get when people exchange worshipping the Creator with worshipping the creation instead.


Michael J. Norton is senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (www.telladf.org), a legal alliance employing a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


3 + = twelve

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>