Abortion Is Not an Environmental Policy

L ast week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which could reverse the sweeping precedent set by Roe v. Wade and dramatically alter the way this nation makes abortion law.

In recent years, many progressive environmental groups have taken up the pro-choice mantle, supposedly in the name of environmental good. They’ve done so based on the idea that abortion slows population growth, thus lessening the burden humans place on the environment. This, coupled with the mainstream environmental movement’s “doom and gloom” approach, has painted a bleak picture of the future for Millennials and Generation Z, and as a result many of them now believe it is morally wrong to have children. In fact, recent polling showed that over 50 percent of Americans aged 16–25 felt sad, anxious, angry, powerless, helpless, and guilty about climate change, with four in ten saying they are hesitant to have children.

But they shouldn’t be.

As an environmental activist, I fight for solutions not for their own sake, but for the sake of generations to come. That means not limiting the next generation, but building a future that will support further human flourishing. The inherent value of life is the biggest reason to advocate for issues related to human dignity, women’s rights, and yes, even our planet. To be effective advocates, we need the promise of a better tomorrow, the policies to get us there, and the skill and resolve necessary to execute them. Life itself is what makes this work meaningful.

Despite this, anti-natalism — an ethical view that negatively values procreation — is a disturbingly common theme on the political left, especially as it relates to the environment. Most of these narratives revolve around the argument that it is immoral to bear children whose carbon footprint and use of resources will further plunge our planet into despair. It is irresponsible, the thinking goes, to bring children into a world where they may suffer. Senator Bernie Sanders, long hailed by progressives as an environmental champion, was once asked whether or not he would lead on measures to curb population growth in an effort to address climate change. Senator Sanders responded with a resounding “yes” to enthusiastic applause.

By removing children from the equation, the Left effectively removes the primary motivation to fight for a cleaner, brighter future. A culture that embraces, supports, and provides for women is far superior to one that forces women to a crossroads where hardship and heartache await them in either direction. Central to the abortion debate is a subtle truth: This subject is difficult and emotional because deep down, we know the value of life.

Because progressive feminism often places abortion at the front and center of its agenda, early in my career I was dismissive of the idea that women in America may face disadvantages compared to their male counterparts. Repulsed by the radicalism of what I later learned to identify as third-wave feminists, I was inclined to reject any argument they made. Yet as I matured, I became more familiar with the unique challenges women face in society and softened to the idea of feminism. While I still don’t identify as a feminist, I no longer outright dismiss the existence of “women’s issues;” I just place my energy into applying a conservative worldview to them.

The original, first-wave feminists had their greatest success with what we know as the suffragette movement. What is too often forgotten today is that many of them were vocally and unashamedly pro-life. As Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, has noted, these suffragettes understood that the rights of unborn children could not be sacrificed for the rights of women. Abortion is a symptom of women’s oppression, not a solution to it.

Aside from the fact that population control is not a serious environmental solution, it must finally be acknowledged that the unspoken assumption behind the push for environmental solutions is that life is worth fighting for and sustaining. While a farmer planting a grove of trees may not live to see the impact of his actions, surely his grandchildren will recognize the lush forest that grove grows into and breathe the cleaner air that it produces. Resource conservation and environmental stewardship are not practices employed solely for our own personal benefit; they are for the advancement of generations to come.

When you strip away the noise, political point-scoring, and false choices, it becomes obvious that life itself is precious, worth defending, and a right for all. Human dignity — for men, women, and children born and unborn alike — is what makes these tough battles worth fighting.