SCIENCE CZAR? NOT QUITE

July 17, 2009

This week, as the health care reform debate forged ahead in Congress, President Obama announced the appointment of his new “science czar.” John Holdren, a science professor and author, will take the position of Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. This position holds new importance for a country whose administration promised, as Obama said in his inauguration speech, to “restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost.”

I make the connection because as Congress considers making abortion a part of a government mandated health care service, paid for by our tax dollars, its scary to think that the man President Obama has hired to advise himself on the issue once argued in favor of forced abortions and sterilization as a means of population control.

The statements made by Holden were not made in passing at a cocktail party or even in a speech. Holdren actually published a book in the late 1970’s entitled "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment." The book, now (of course!), was co-authored by Paul Erlich, the “Population Bomb” theorist whose ideas become more and more discredited daily as birth rates continue to drop (below the replacement rate) in countries across the globe. It is in this writing that Holdren discussed how to limit human fertility and expansion—taking no ethic or moral considerations into account, as Washington Examiner commentator David Freddoso

As a government response to uncontrollable growth of the human population, Holdren claimed:

“Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means.”

Holdren looked to India’s bout of forced sterilizations in the 1970’s with approval saying that the Indian government:

“not only entertained the idea of compulsory sterilization, but moved toward implementing it...There is too little time left to experiment further with educational programs and hope that social change will generate a spontaneous fertility decline, and most of the Indian population is too poor for direct economic pressures (especially penalties) to be effective.”

The point that using economic pressure as means to limited fertility would be ineffective against India’s poor population is blatant discrimination and hatred for the poor and is textbook talk for eugenicists. When Holdren later suggests “adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple food” the possible problems that could arise are mainly that “no such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development.” It is only briefly that Holdren mentions the abhorrence most people have for the idea. To Holdren, the only downfall is that it is impossible; no moral or ethical questions are posed.

When dealing with the question of illegitimate children, Holdren deadpans: “It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.” This claim is made with no objections whatsoever, moral, ethical, or otherwise—forced abortions are completely within realm of possibility to Holden.

Needless to say, the fact that President Obama has put a man of this mindset into a position of power is frightening. As the health cared debate continues, Americans MUST be assertive and forceful. It abortion becomes an accepted part of government-run health care, the damage to not only the pro-life movement, but the American spirit, will be monumental.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.