This story came out a couple of weeks ago, and it was so bad that I couldn't think of anything to say about it. (That does happen sometimes.)
Of course, anyone with sense knows that the "global warming" spin is just the latest excuse. In the 1970's, before anyone had ever heard of the global warming scare, the population controllers were preaching the same gospel: Having babies is "irresponsible," and government must do something or other about it.
And in third-world countries, they have. Western aid groups have aggressively pushed population control, with the cooperation of foreign governments. (I recommend the Population Research Institute for much documentation.) China's one-child policy is only the most infamous of these initiatives. PRI has documented aggressive and coercive population control in South America and Africa as well.
What is noticeable about Jonathan Porritt's evil screed (with its specific lament about women whose pregnancies are "brought to birth" and its explicit call for abortion as a means of population control) is that he's a government functionary in a Western country and appears to be calling for some sort of government-pushed population control in Britain itself.
So I finally thought of something to say. More specifically, to ask. How successful is he going to be?
Porritt expressly calls for the government to "improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion." In a country with a socialized medical system, this has coercive overtones. What could happen is that the government would decide that a number of children beyond X is not "cost effective" and/or is "environmentally irresponsible." Women who become pregnant more than X times could be told that they can get an abortion through the National Health System but will not be given pre-natal care. I have little doubt that such a plan would warm Porritt's green little heart.
In America, there are already rumors of women on welfare being told that they need to be on long-term contraception in order to receive benefits. I am sorry to say that Jared Taylor calls for exactly this requirement in his book Paved With Good Intentions. When the government is in charge, the government calls the tune. And given that the Democrats have slipped medical rationing provisions into the recent so-called "stimulus" bill, those of us who happen not to be dependent directly on government for our excellent American healthcare shouldn't be too sure that expansion of government control over maternity care will never happen here.
I have little doubt that poor women in England who are living directly on England's version of welfare come under tremendous pressure to abort. The only question is whether Porritt's charming priorities will come to the middle classes. What do you think, readers? Is there a future for coercive population control in the population at large? In England? In the United States?