Chelsea Clinton Endorses Article Linking 'Family Planning' To Climate Change

And we all know what "family planning" means

On Friday, Chelsea Clinton endorsed an article in The Washington Post that linked “family planning” to climate change:

The article, written by John Podesta, the former chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, and Timothy E. Wirth, the vice chairman and president emeritus of the United Nations Foundation, argues, “Forging a coalition between the environmental movement and the women’s rights movement will not only fundamentally advance women’s rights but also do a world of good for the planet, which is bearing an environmental burden because of population growth.”

After positing that the population of planet Earth has increased rapidly in the last 75 years, the article imagines a “worst-case scenario in which we grow by 70 percent and reach a population of 13 billion people by the end of the century” that could be ameliorated by “sensible international family-planning programs,” which include abortion, of course, that could “potentially stabilize the population at below 10 billion.”

Podesta and Wirth write, “In fact, family planning ranks as one of the 10 most substantive solutions to climate change, according to a recent analysis of peer-reviewed research.”

Of course, the authors don’t mention that the list of board members of Drawdown, the group that performed the “recent analysis,” is chock-full of environmental activists.

The authors rip President Trump, of course, writing, “And yet, one of President Trump’s first acts in office was to widely expand the 'global gag rule,' which blocks federal funding to any global health organization that provides, counsels on or advocates legal abortion services, including those providing family-planning services, HIV treatment and vaccinations.”

You mean the Trump Administration doesn’t support baby-killing? Monstrous.

The authors continue, “This is where women’s rights activists and environmental activists have a powerful opportunity to push back and align their resources.”

Which is, of course, the entire purpose of the article, to strengthen the bond between women’s activists and leftist environmental activists, as clearly evidenced by the concluding paragraph:

American environmentalists and women’s rights advocates have every reason to feel under siege by the Trump administration. But this is all the more reason to find common cause in fighting for healthy women and a healthy planet. Progress is made possible when groups that have long focused on single issues join forces to build fairer, more sustainable economies and societies.

What's Your Reaction?