In a college-level textbook Holdren co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich, Holdren states that in conditions of "emergency," compulsory abortion policies would be sustainable under the U.S. Constitution--you know, the one that guarantees the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
After obtaining a copy of Holdren's "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment published in 1977, World Net Daily reports that Obama's science czar joined Ehrlich in arguing that involuntary birth-control measures--including forced sterilization--may be "necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by 'climate change.'"
To prevent ecological disasters, including "global warming," Holdren argued the U.S. Constitution would permit involuntary abortions, government-imposed sterilizations and laws limiting the number of children as steps justified under the banner of "sustainable well-being."[# More #]
Also in the book, Holdren notes that "to provide high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people."
The authors of "Ecoscience" argued that a "legal restriction on the right to have more than a given number of children" could be crafted under the U.S. Constitution in crisis situations under the standard that "law has as its proper function the protection of each person and each group of persons."
On page 838, the authors argued, "The law could properly say to a mother that, in order to protect the children she already has, she could have no more."
To justify the point, the authors commented "differential rates of reproduction between ethnic, racial, religious, or economic groups might result in increased competition for resources and political power and thereby undermine social order."
And like dismissed green jobs czar Van Jones, Holdren has recently tried to disavow his 1970s beliefs. But World Net Daily writes that his old radical views have popped up as recently as 2008.