WHO Pandemic Treaty: ‘Far Too Little Scrutiny’
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights & International Organizations, and senior member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said there has been “far too little scrutiny” of and “far too few questions asked” about what the World Health Organization’s “pandemic treaty” will mean to the United States.
Smith held a press conference Monday amid the WHO’s rush to finalize the language of its so-called “treaty” that will be up for a vote during the meeting of the World Health Assembly in May.
Several experts joined Smith to highlight the serious issues surrounding the “treaty,” including the lack of transparency during the negotiations, WHO’s infringement on United States sovereignty and the rights of Americans, the document’s massive funding of abortion, and its favorability to China.
Among those who joined Smith were:
- Rep. Brad Wenstrup, DPM (R-OH), Chairman of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic;
- Ambassador Andrew Bremberg, Former Permanent Representative of the United States to the European Office of the United Nations and President of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation;
- Dr. Monique Wubbenhost, OBGYN, global health expert, Senior Research Associate at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture, and Former Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator in the Bureau for Global Health at the US Agency for International Development (USAID);
- Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council
Smith stressed the significance of the impact the agreement could have on Americans by referring to a January 22 report at the UN News that states “[s]uch agreements made between countries have legal standing and are binding.”
The WHO’s agreement “is under consideration by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) in Geneva, who likely will present a final text on May 27th for a World Health Assembly vote,” the congressman said, adding, however, that “outside the INB, far too little scrutiny has been given, far too few questions asked as to what this legally binding agreement or treaty means to health policy in the United States and elsewhere.”
Of paramount importance is whether the Biden administration will submit the so-called “treaty” to the U.S. Senate “for its constitutionally-required advice and consent as a prerequisite for ratification,” Smith noted, warning that “an executive agreement bypassing Senate ratification would be an egregious mistake.”
The New Jersey representative further expressed his concern about some of the most grievous issues attached to the WHO’s agreement, including:
- The “billions of dollars U.S. taxpayers will be required to give pursuant to Article 20 of the Agreement in ‘annual monetary contributions … to the WHO Pandemic Agreement.”
- Article 6 calls for the “continued provision of … essential health services,” which, Smith noted, includes abortion on demand.
“There is absolutely no ambiguity here,” Smith emphasized, adding that the WHO includes abortion in its list of essential health care services.
In November 2021, despite the fact that most countries restrict and regulate abortion, the WHO declared that “lack of access” to abortion “is a critical public health and human rights issue.”
“Paragraph 13 of the Pandemic Agreement affirms the need to prioritize ‘equity and respect for human rights,’” Smith observed, but noted “the WHO made clear that it construes the killing of unborn children by abortion—dismemberment, child beheading and starvation, and that’s how the abortion pill works—to be a human right.”
The WHO has gone as far as to grant global abortion giant International Planned Parenthood Federation “official relations with WHO” status, the congressman pointed out, and added the WHO executive board is “expected to vote in May to give another abortion-promoting organization – the Center for Reproductive Rights” the same status.
Smith also drew attention to Article 18 that seeks to “combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation.”
“Will there be any room for dissent on vaccines, therapeutics, virus transmission and the like—especially among scientists and health professionals—or will group think again crowd out other viewpoints?” the congressman asked. “We have reason for concern—past could be prologue.”
According to the UN News, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus expressed concern to the executive board that “several outstanding issues” needed to be resolved within a short time in order to establish consensus on the “treaty.”
“A failure to deliver the pandemic agreement and the International Health Regulations amendments will be a missed opportunity for which future generations may not forgive us,” he said.
See more here substack.com
Bold emphasis added
Header image: Youtube
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.