Source: Katarina Carranco via Population Research Institute
Are Abortion And Contraception The Solution To The Climate Crisis?
It’s a good question. After all, climate crisis advocates blame human activity as the leading cause for climate change. So why not push for global access to abortion and contraception under the guise of climate activism to address the “source” of all climate change—humanity?
Well, this is precisely what the abortion industry has attempted to do; however, to arrive at this point has proved to be quite a challenge.
For quite some time, the abortion industry has been associated with the population control and eugenics movements. These links have been hard to camouflage, especially given the central agenda of several international abortion corporations and their founders such as International Planned Parenthood Federation (Margaret Sanger) and Marie Stopes International.
Simply put, both groups have had a long and indelible history of eugenics in the name of racism.
However, in an attempt to shift the focus from eugenics and population control abortion, advocates have cleverly latched onto a different campaign that helps covertly push their agenda while not obviously promoting eugenics and population control. In doing so, they have been able to use this guise as a Trojan Horse to sneak their movement into other political arenas with broader agendas.
The goal: to reap the benefits of an increasingly large and seemingly important cause that has international cooperation and money.
How have they come to achieve this cunning scheme? Groups in the abortion industry have slowly been distancing themselves from the eugenics and population control movement and rebranding themselves in a different type of campaign that promotes women’s “rights” (albeit it distorted rights).
With this rebranding, they fall under a broader movement that provides them more flexibility and sway to push their ultimate goal — international abortion laws under the guise of “woman’s rights” and “women’s health.” Through their association with the “Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights” (SRHR) movement, the abortion industry claims to advocate women’s “rights” while naming abortion and contraception as an obvious subset of rights for women under this broader spectrum.
This new “rights” category has made it possible for abortion advocates to use women’s autonomy as a guise in order to rebrand the movement as a champion of a movement now at the forefront of agendas across the world: Climate Change.
The climate crisis has been advertised as a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. According to the Davos Agenda and a plethora of like-minded organizations, we can expect a very bleak future if humanity does not clean up its act by 2050. In light of this “pressure,” the SRHR movement has been able to flaunt its support of this high-priority agenda, parading with pride as an integral and powerful supporter of the humanitarian work needed to fight climate change. Thus, they can then be categorized as an environmentally sustainable activist group as well.
As proclaimed by IPCC Working Group Co-Chair Valérie Masson-Delmotte, “It has been clear for decades that the Earth’s climate is changing, and the role of human influence on the climate system is undisputed.”
The heightened temperatures worldwide increase weather patterns that propagate natural disasters that can cause strain on the world in different areas. According to climate crisis advocates, this strain affects the food supply chain when crops fail and brings hardship to affected countries, especially those that are already poverty-stricken countries. In such situations, the SRHR advocacy groups want to focus on the lack of access to “health services” in places affected after such events.
We know that when SRHR groups talk about “access to health service,” they really mean that women should have access to contraception and abortion “care.” This, they continue, is especially true in regions affected by natural disasters, because the climate crisis is generating unusually grave hardship in poor countries.
The conclusion? As Star Trek’s Dr. Spock would argue, this proves that access to abortion and the distribution of contraception before such hardships begin can aid in fertility reduction and thus alleviate the distress in impoverished countries, once Climate Change rears its ugly head.
Of course, on inspection, they are really arguing that people, and not the weather, are the problem.
“Family Planning” Solves Climate Change … Or Something.
Natural disasters are not the only excuse the SRHR advocacy groups use to avoid “difficult situations” before they come. They claim that an inevitable and necessary step to combat climate change is with “family planning.” We are aware that family planning is a phrase used to sugar-coated what they really mean – more contraception and abortion.
“Overpopulation” has always been a staple of the abortion industry – but as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg once observed, the term applies only to “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Right. There are just enough of us, but waaaay too many of you, and you and your [unwanted] kind are causing Climate Change, we aren’t.
And that murderous arrogance is central to SRHR groups and their agenda as they claim to fight the twin evils of overpopulation and global warming.
Another fertility reduction strategy features the “empow”erment of girls and women through (sex) “education” and advancing “health and gender equality.” The International Planned Parenthood Federation insists that contraception and abortion are basic human rights that women, especially in impoverished countries, lack.
They imply that these backwards peoples are incapable of caring for themselves, so of course they lack the “ability to have control over their own bodies and ultimately, their future.”
Of course, that means that we superior beings must help them.
How? By “educating” these wayward women – effectively reducing greenhouse gases and global warming (our goals) while “empowering” them (their goal, if they know what’s good for them).
One of the most prominent organizations promoting this is the Guttmacher Institute, which published a report entitled “Adding It Up: Investing in Sexual and Reproductive Health 2019,” in which they stated the following:
“Many experts view universal access to voluntary family planning as a ‘climate-compatible’ development strategy. Reductions in unintended pregnancy through contraceptive use and women’s empowerment can help slow population growth, which in turn reduces demands on the environment. In addition, by influencing both the size and overall health of future populations, improved sexual and reproductive health care has a positive effect on the ability of households, communities, and countries to adapt and respond to environmental change.”
Clearly the abortion lobby’s association with the climate crisis has not changed its population-control agenda. Rather it has empowered them to make their population-control agenda more relevant by means of embedding fear through climate crisis theory and claiming their movement as the solution.
But do not be fooled: because we have already seen that overpopulation is a myth. In our recent interview with Professor Angelo Bertolo, he demonstrated how Malthusian belief in decreasing the population goes against the grain of history, and how large populations are necessary for the most successful civilizations.
Header image: Callum Shaw via unsplash.com