Don't Let WHO Rule U.S. Healthcare

Elon Musk was correct when he tweeted that “Countries should not cede authority to WHO” regarding proposed legal changes incorporated into its International Health Regulations (IHR). Those changes would become effective 10 months from now if a simple majority of the U.N. members approve.

The proposed new rules that will be presented during the World Health Assembly (May 27-June 1) face legitimate opposition over assaults on U.S. sovereignty in allowing U.N. bureaucrats to impose mandatory health and pandemic reporting, vaccinations, tracking, and other requirements that override national laws and state public health statutes.

Critics argue that the net effect of the proposed IHR amendments would be to confer authority to the WHO to create a legal and financial basis for the emergence of an elaborate, internationally coordinated bio-surveillance regime, including coordination and direction of vaccination policies unilaterally deemed a “public health emergency of international concern.”

Of special note is de facto license it grants the WHO to control and censor contradictory medical opinions as “misinformation.”

Page 23 of the proposed U.N. treaty states:

“The Parties commit to … tackle false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through promotion of international cooperation. In that regard, each Party is encouraged to … [manage] infodemics … including social media; [and] identify the prevalence and profiles of misinformation…”

Disastrous WHO failures to provide accurate information about the origin and treatment of the COVID-19 pandemic should provide iron-clad reasoning for not ceding that self-governance authority to WHO bureaucrats.

Perhaps recall that former president Donald Trump cut ties with the WHO after it became apparent that China had used its considerable influence with the organization in delaying a warning about the virus’ lethality in 2020.

Despite contrary evidence, WHO Chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus continued to claim that international travel was safe even as China began to enforce draconian quarantines in 15 cities with a total population of about 50 million people.

WHO’s bad advice effectively spread COVID-19 internationally while attempting to allow China to slow its spread at home.

Speaking in the White House Rose Garden, Trump said Chinese officials "ignored their reporting obligations" to the WHO about the virus — "that has killed hundreds of thousands of people globally" — and pressured the agency to "mislead the world."

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo notified the U.N. in July 2020 that the U.S. was invoking its right to withdraw from the WHO treaty with one year’s notice.

On his first full day in office President Joe Biden wasted no time reversing Trump’s decision to pull out of the WHO, a federal policy which is being challenged in some state AGs and legislatures.

A group of 22 state attorneys general recently sent a letter to Biden stating that “We will resist any attempt to enable the WHO to directly or indirectly set policy for our citizens” because the rules “could pave the way for a “global surveillance infrastructure” and require signatory members to “cooperate, in accordance with national law, in preventing misinformation and disinformation.”

Utah and Florida have already passed laws to prevent the WHO from overriding states’ authority on matters of public health policy, Louisiana and Oklahoma have legislation set to take effect soon pending final votes, and several other states are considering similar bills.

States argue that membership in the WHO not only imperils national sovereignty, but also violates rights protected under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution whereby all powers not delegated to the federal government — public health policy included — are reserved to the states.

Whereas Senate Bill 57, the “Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act,” doesn’t specifically mention the WHO, it nevertheless prohibits “enforcement of a federal directive within the state by government officers if the Legislature determines the federal directive violates the principles of state sovereignty.”

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed four related bills in 2023: SB 252 in support of medical freedom; House Bill 1387, banning gain-of-function research, Senate Bill 1580, protecting physicians’ freedom of speech, and Senate Bill 238, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of people’s medical choices.

Louisiana’s proposed Senate Law No. 133 more specifically bars the WHO, the United Nations, and World Economic Forum from wielding enforceable influence over the state, disallowing any of them from issuing any binding rule, regulation, fee, tax, policy or mandate of any kind.

The bill, now pending Louisiana House of Representatives approval, is set to take effect on Aug. 1.

Likewise, the Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed Senate Bill 426 (SB 426), which states, “The World Health Organization, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum shall have no jurisdiction in the State of Oklahoma.”

If signed into law, the bill will take effect June 1.

It remains to be seen whether the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately allow states to have jurisdiction over federal policies on such matters.

Whereas a 1984 SCOTUS decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council allowed federal agencies to assert more authority to make laws, that tide may be turning.

As reported in the Epoch Times, “The current Supreme Court has taken some steps to rein in the administrative state, including the landmark decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, ruling that federal agencies can’t assume powers that Congress didn’t explicitly give them.”

On the other hand, 2024 election results may save SCOTUS the trouble of having to decide whether American sovereignty and self-governance are worth protecting from unelected U.N. committees.