Issues & Insights
Gage Skidmore, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license (

Kamala’s Population Bomb

Last week, Vice President Kamala Harris received a round of applause when she said “​​when we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce population, more of our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water.” And with that, she pulled back the curtain to expose one of the many horrors that is usually endorsed not quite so openly by the political left.

We acknowledge that Harris might have lost another one of the many battles she and her White House boss have with teleprompters and public speaking in general. The official transcript scrubs “population” and replaces it with “pollution,” as if that was the term the speech called for.

Maybe it is the word she was supposed to use. But we can’t rule out the likelihood she made a Kinsley gaffe, revealing a truth she didn’t intend to, because her side of the aisle has long been aligned with population-reduction cranks.

One Democrat who hasn’t been shy about population limits is Bernie Sanders, the Vermont bedlamite. During a 2019 town hall meeting, Sanders said “yes” when asked if he asked about “the need to curb population growth” in order to “address climate catastrophe.” He spoke for many that day.

Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich was not the first to advocate cutting the planet’s population, but he did blow up the world in 1968 with “The Population Bomb,” in which he shared his conviction that unless humanity was culled, the near future was one of “mass starvation” on “a dying planet.” To get to the beginning we’d have to go back at least as far as the late 18th century, when Englishman ​​Thomas Robert Malthus wanted to “court the return of the plague” and forbid “specific remedies for ravaging diseases” to stop what he thought was the pestilence of overpopulation.

But there was no American Democratic Party in 1798, nor was the media in that era as perverted as the modern (Democratic Party operative) journalists who provide oxygen to the enemies of humanity, such as Les Knight and Ehrlich.

Neither did the Population Connection Action Fund exist at that time. But it’s around now, and this group that “advocates progressive action to stabilize world population” has “endorsed and funded exclusively Democratic candidates in some of the most competitive House races in the country,” the Washington Examiner reported during the 2018 election cycle.

Not every Democrat is a Malthusian or Ehrlich-ite. But Obama science czar John Holdren is certainly the latter, having co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich “Ecoscience,” the 1977 book that, says the Baptist Press, “discussed such compulsory measures to limit population as abortion, sterilization after a second or third child, a sterilizing capsule implanted at the onset of puberty and a sterilant given to the population in drinking water or food.”

Democrats also have to answer for Lyndon Johnson, who in 1965 said he was “not going to piss away foreign aid in nations where they refuse to deal with their own population problems.” And the 1968 party platform, which listed “population control” as an objective. More recently, New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said asking if it’s “okay to still have children” is “a legitimate question.”

Then there’s Scott Wallace, a failed Democratic congressional candidate and co-chairman of the Wallace Global Fund, which has bankrolled the aforementioned Population Connection Action Fund, the lovely outfit that wants to punish those guilty of “irresponsible breeding.”

Though it might seem as if the population-control Democrats we’ve mentioned are the outliers in their party, they’re not. They’re just the ones saying the out loud what most of their comrades are afraid to.

— Written by the I&I Editorial Board

We Could Use Your Help

Issues & Insights was founded by seasoned journalists of the IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day -- without fear or favor.

We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe in a free press, and because we aren't afraid to tell the truth, even if it means being targeted by the left. Revenue from ads on the site help, but your support will truly make a difference in keeping our mission going. If you like what you see, feel free to visit our Donations Page by clicking here. And be sure to tell your friends!

You can also subscribe to I&I: It's free!

Just enter your email address below to get started.


I & I Editorial Board

The Issues and Insights Editorial Board has decades of experience in journalism, commentary and public policy.


  • From the editorial “irresponsible breeding” and “population control” stand out.
    It should not surprise anyone that the Democratic Party embraced and still embraces Eugenics. That is the pseudo-science of selectively breeding people to get desired traits to become more common while extinguishing traits they saw as objectionable. Think NAZI Dr Mengele and his horrible experimentations using concentration camp internees for ‘research’. His attitude was preceded and encouraged by Progressive American eugenicists of the 1920s. At the post WW2 Nuremberg trials NAZI doctors cited 1920s California Eugenics law in their own defense.

    Democrats have long supported population control of both numbers as well as the ‘quality’ of people. “…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger Founder of Planned Parenthood. “More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Margaret Sanger c.1920.
    The Sangers and Mengeles saw themselves at the top of the human pyramid. They saw race and ethnicity to be the touchstone of their research. “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the N[Black] population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Margaret Sanger.

    Those attitudes are from the past, right? Wrong: “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in July 2009. Bader never was asked to clarify which population “we don’t want to have too many of.” However she illustrated the shared theme of Eugenicists since Sanger and Mengeles when she cited “population control” in general and “populations that we don’t want to have too many of” specifically.

  • Everyone who supports population control should go first. Lead by example!!

    • Kamala Harris is leading by example. She has never birthed anything.

About Issues & Insights

Issues & Insights is run by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our goal is to bring our decades of combined journalism experience to help readers understand the top issues of the day. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis, because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide. 

We Could Use Your Help

Help us fight for honesty in journalism and against the tyranny of the left. Issues & Insights is published by the editors of what once was Investor's Business Daily's award-winning opinion pages. If you like what you see, leave a donation by clicking on donate button above. You can also set up regular donations if you like. Ad revenue helps, but your support will truly make a difference. (Please note that we are not set up as a charitable organization, so donations aren't tax deductible.) Thank you!
%d bloggers like this: