Posts

Contraception and abortion needed to … reduce global warming?

Jonathon Porritt, the chairman of a government watchdog group on environmental issues, is insistent contraception and abortion be the centerpiece of the fight against global warming.

Not windmills. Not batteries. Not solar. Not alternatives. Cutting population growth should be the centerpiece through contraception and abortion through government regulation.

Porritt is chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission whose members report directly to the prime minister. Porritt is also an adviser to the royal family and an patron of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), who notes on their home page they are opposed to any form of coercion in family planning.

The also state…

The Optimum Population Trust believes that Earth may not be able to support more than half its present numbers before the end of this century, and that the UK’s long-term sustainable population level may be lower than 30 million.

The population of the UK is currently about 61 million people. They think we need to “remove” half of the entire population within 92 years? Wow, they certainly may be against coercion in family planning, but my guess is they don’t have any issues with brain washing.

Since organizations like the Sustainable Development Commission and OPT work directly with the UK government, I’m wondering if they have gotten into the school system yet? Are teachers members and supporters of the OPT? When will we see literature from the OPT specifically designed for kids?

The Sunday Times has quotes from Porritt’s concerning a report to be released soon.

Couples who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population. …

“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.” …

Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.

He said: “We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high levels of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they want to become mothers.

I’m perfectly fine with families making their own decisions about how many children they want to have. Those decisions should be made after reviewing many factors including what is affordable, and yes, the impact on the environment.

The problem is that the information is not being based on facts. Global warming – re-branded as climate change – is the new religion after all. We’re brainwashing people. There is no consensus in science.

Liberalism and socialism is actually a driving force in all of this. If the government keeps bailing out everyone and continues down the path to provide health care, education, pre-school, breakfast, lunch,housing for families, and everything else imaginable, they will not have the reason to make their own decisions.

The government is there to support and provide of course, so why should they even care? Maybe if the government provides everything, parents would be willing to limit the number of kids they have. In turn, they loose all of their freedom.

Hat tip to Sister Toldjah for posting the link to the Times piece.

Loosing a Seat in Congress – What to do?

The Berkshire Eagle Online has a story today concerning the low population growth in the state of Massachusetts. As you may or may not know, a states representation in the U.S. House of Representatives is determined by the population of the state.

“You are definitely going to lose a seat up there,” said Clark Bensen, founder and head of Polidata, a political analysis and census data firm in Lake Ridge, Va., that compiled the report. “There’s no way things are going to stay the same.”

So how do you think that state legislators and politicians are dealing with the issue? Might they try to turn the trend around over the next two years to get more people to move to Massachusetts? I doubt it. (Emphasis added)

Massachusetts Secretary of State William F. Galvin, who worked to save the 10 U.S. House of Representative seats in 2000, said he is troubled by the figures but committed to a strong count during the 2010 census.

“It is, as they note, still a projection based on estimates,” Galvin said. “This will be very challenging, because our population growth isn’t robust, but we have unique factors here that I believe might help us up our count.” Galvin pointed to the state’s vast college population — which can be counted if students spend most of the year in state — and to the immigrant community.

“For the size of our state, it’s a remarkable amount,” Galvin said. “We were effective in reaching out to indigenous groups up in Lowell and other locations to make them understand the need to be counted last time.”

Am I reading something into Galvin’s statement? Look, if students are truly residents of the state, that’s fine, but is there any check to ensure that these kids are not being double-counted?

And by the way, what the heck is an indigenous group Mr. Secretary?

On the boston.com Web site, I found an article from October providing some information about the Fifth Congressional District race between Democrat Niki Tsongas and Republican Jim Ogonowski.

Of the roughly 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, the Pew Hispanic Center has estimated that 150,000 to 250,000 live in Massachusetts. There are no estimates for how many live in the Fifth District, but Lowell and Lawrence are two of the state’s immigration hubs. According to the US Census, about 38 percent of Lowell residents and 74 percent of Lawrence residents speak a language other than English at home.

Translation: This area is full of illegal aliens, and since these good folks don’t like to call attention to themselves – since they are criminals – they usually don’t like to get officially counted for anything; even attendance figures for sporting events.

The problem here is that Galvin and the state of Massachusetts are not interested in innovative ways to bring new people to the state. Ideas like lowering the tax burden, reducing outrageous business regulations, running a more fiscally responsible government and more personal freedoms are just not on the table at all.

They would rather find innovative ways to count more people.