Environment and the Presidential Pledge

Michele Bachmann has signed The Presidential Pledge. Want to read the whole thing for yourself? Check it out here.

The Washington Post reported some of the most offensive passages. They missed the reference to "vulnerable women ... and the rights of fathers," and references to "anti-scientific bias." Then there's this:

...robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to US demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial security.

Uhh, no. Robust reproduction is not beneficial, not to the United States, and not to the rest of the world. Back in the 70s, people were actually trying to promote Zero Population Growth by encouraging two-child families in which each parent would be numerically replaced.

Since then, the world's population has nearly tripled.

More people means more food, more transport, more greenhouse gas emissions, more global warming. Why do I suspect that the anti-scientific bias of the people who wrote the "Pledge" would lead them to insist there is no such thing?