Wednesday, February 08, 2017 by Vicki Batts
The Sierra Club is no stranger to controversy, but recently the group has come under fire for their far-reaching views on abortion. The president of the Sierra Club even went so far as to tell Fox News’s Tucker Carlson that “it helps to address the number of people that we have on this planet” so “we can get to a sustainable population.”
The organization also claims that abortion is good for the environment.
When asked why they believe abortion helps the environment, executive director Michael Brune merely replied with, “Well, we believe in empowering women’s rights. We think that, uh, women who have rights and who have the ability to have choice about their reproductive – make their own reproductive choices – uh, will help to produce strong families and will help to protect the environment at the same time. Sierra Club is pro-choice.” (RELATED: Find more news about abortions at Abortions.news)
Unsatisfied with Brune’s response, Carlson pressed on, asking, “But why? What does that have to do with the environment? How specifically does more abortion or legal abortion help the environment?”
Brune said that he believed abortion helps to “address” the amount of people populating the planet. “We feel that one of the ways in which we can get to a sustainable population is to empower women to make choices about their own families,” Brune explained.
Carlson commented on the fact that the Sierra Club’s ideologies seem to have drifted far from their original purpose — to protect the environment — and noted that the organization appears to have been “hijacked” and turned into a “left-wing advocacy organization.”
Brune claims that their stances on abortion, transgenderism, and illegal immigration are things they support because its “the right thing to do.” Of course, Brune also revealed that supporting these causes has also led to a dramatic increase in membership. So, is it really about doing the “right” thing, or is it about boosting membership? Who knows.
The Sierra Club executive director went on to explain that many of the club’s members might be gay, transgender, Latino, or even “undocumented,” claiming that it is important to support the rights of all people, so they can all stand together for the environment. Apparently, children who haven’t been born yet are not a part of this utopian, hand-holding vision.
Once upon a time, the Sierra Club was an environmental rights organization that was focused on one goal: protecting the environment. Now, as Carlson pointed out, it seems that the organization has lost its founding principles in a bid to garner more followers, regardless of the cost. One might even go so far as to say that Brune is pandering to the public when he makes such commentary.
It is rather hard to believe there is any integrity left in the Sierra Club, especially when it comes to the environment: just five years ago, the club was outed for secretly accepting $26 million in donations from people associated with a natural gas company.
And in 2014, the organization was in serious hot water for tax violations. The club had never paid taxes on unrelated business income, and was also accused of “impermissible benefit to private interests.” Anthony Watts explains that in addition to not paying taxes on what it sells for profit, the organization used its War on Coal to both produce profits and boost business for other corporations.
Eight of the 18 Sierra Club executives own or operate businesses in the renewable energy industry that directly benefit from the War on Coal — representing collusion at its finest.
Even though the Sierra Club doesn’t directly pay these people, they were sure to benefit from the club’s actions.
David Gelbaum, an investor who has been involved with over 40 “clean tech” companies that directly benefit from forced shutdown of the coal-power industry, has donated some $100 million to the Sierra Club.
And people think they’re some kind of moral authority?