clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Opinion: Where was the outrage against attacks on Mitt Romney’s family size?

As someone working full time in environmental advocacy, I’ve witnessed how some fringes of the left are leading young people to believe (incorrectly) that having children is bad for the planet

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, speaks during a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing.
Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, speaks during a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing on Jan. 11.
Greg Nash, Associated Press

When a forgettable political pundit lambasted the Romneys on Twitter for having too many children — suggesting they be sterilized — it should have evoked unanimous disgust. How disappointing that many people instead contributed their own disturbing personal attacks on the senator for having a big family.

While this was horrendous, it did not surprise me. The justification for many of these attacks was environmental protection. As someone working full time in environmental advocacy, I’ve witnessed how some fringes of the left are leading young people to believe (incorrectly) that having children is bad for the planet. Even more upsetting is how unchallenged that idea has gone.

The irony is, Sen. Mitt Romney is a leader on climate. Multiple times in 2021, he publicly discussed the Baker-Shultz proposal, which is perhaps the most serious climate policy option in Washington. (Not accidentally, it is also one of the best for families.)

As a father, I cringe when I imagine an America that does not value children as the impetus for good environmental policy. That is why Republicans such as Romney are essential to solving climate change. His support of climate solutions that support families is vital to the future of my child and of every Utah family.

Andrew Sandstrom

Regional director for Young Conservatives for Carbon Dividends

Pleasant View