Not only does he have a position of wanting to forbid women of the right to choose what happens to their bodies, he wants to tell them that they should have children, whether they want to or not:
It's one of those moments in which humans' interests are seemingly at odds with those of the environment. It doesn't have to be this way; humans, of course, have an interest in the environment in which we live, and we have every motive to use the resource well.
Still, it's a resource. Most people grasp that, but not always. Amy at Modern Commentaries helpfully noted a couple of Journal Sentinel letter writers who apparently didn't. A couple of chaps said -- and I'm quoting the money lines -- "All we have to do is make fewer babies," and "I rarely hear a discussion about how we have too many people!"
Actually, in much of the world, people are making fewer babies. Most of Europe, Japan, China, so on are already lining up for population plunges as fertility rates have fallen far below the replacement rate. Even the United Nations has been predicting a declining world population after 2050. This, by the by, isn't particularly good. Hard to have human societies without humans.
In other words, in McIlheran's mind, those among us who cannot or choose not to have children have doomed all of mankind. No wonder he considers those of us that love freedom as elitists. We're just so selfish to want to decide on how to live our lives.
I'm sure it won't be long before he proposes an auxiliary to the amendment banning gay marriage by demanding that people procreate or face prosecution.