Update 6/10/2024: According to C-Fam, the World Heath Organization (WHO) has given special status to the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR). The thirty-four countries on the board of the heath agency voted, with 17 countries voting in favor, 13 voting against, and four abstaining from what C-Fam calls a “secret” vote.

“A U.S. delegate said a secret ballot was necessary to ‘ensure national positions are being reflected, recognizing that there are a number of external views and pressures that we would want to guard against,'” reported C-Fam.

The WHO secretariat packaged the vote in favor of official status to the CFF with the organization Rare Diseases International. Though there were calls to keep the two organizations separate in the vote, the U.S. delegate rejected the idea and a subsequent vote to keep them separate was defeated.

5/24/2024: Over the past few months, there has been growing discussion about a World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Agreement, the text of which has not yet been finalized, and proposed amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), which is an already-existing agreement. Critics fear that, if adopted in their current proposed forms, these agreements will threaten national sovereignty and civil liberties by granting sole authority over health policy among signatory nations to the WHO in the event of a new global pandemic.

Promoting abortion under the banner of “equity”

Although the latest draft of the pandemic agreement does not specifically mention abortion, opponents argue that its language essentially provides a back door for pro-abortion actors to meddle with individual nations’ abortion-related policies through its focus on “equity” – a term that is used repeatedly throughout the document without ever being specifically defined. 

According to C-Fam:

The concept of equity is inherently ambiguous and is expected to give the international health agency and western donors wide latitude for mischief, including promoting abortion and gender ideology.

U.S. State Department and Western government agencies define equity by reference to gender ideology, which includes abortion and homosexual/trans rights….

The concept of equity is also likely to result in interference by the international health agency into all areas of policy, not just pandemic or health policies.

According to the treaty preamble, equity requires reviewing all national policies including “social, environmental, cultural, political and economic” policies that may impact health in any way. And the treaty states that this applies “both during and between pandemics.”

The WHO is openly pro-abortion

There is good reason for pro-lifers to be suspicious of the WHO, which is manifestly pro-abortion. Its website states that the “realization of human rights[] requires that all individuals have access to quality health care, including comprehensive abortion care services[.]” It also states that access to abortion is “fundamental” to “gender equality.”

The WHO’s guidance on “safe” abortion recommends limiting healthcare workers’ conscience protections and lowering safety standards in order to maximize access to abortion. Its website openly advocates for the ‘removal’ of “laws and policies that cause barriers to quality abortion care (including criminalization of abortion, mandatory waiting periods and third-party authorization requirements)”; it also contains a database of global abortion policies, which it has described as being “intended” to “eliminate the barriers that women encounter in accessing safe abortion services.” 

READ: Arkansas AG sends cease and desist letters to mail-order abortion pill businesses

During the COVID-19 pandemic, WHO officials declared abortion to be an “essential” service, going so far as to state that women should be provided access to this “service” even if they were contagious for the coronavirus. It also encouraged the expansion of telemedicine-based DIY abortion during the pandemic.

Given that the WHO promotes abortion as “healthcare” and a “human right,” there is every reason to believe that handing over control of health policy to the agency will result in the erosion of pro-life laws and regulations.

Current status of the agreement and amendments

The Biden administration has been active in negotiating the terms of the WHO agreement. Although the United States Constitution only permits the adoption of treaties that have been approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate, some critics fear the Biden administration will try to bypass this requirement, citing the fact that the administration lobbied the WHO to rebrand the “Pandemic Treaty” as a “Pandemic Agreement” — a name change, which has, in fact, been adopted, and which the Biden administration may attempt to use as a loophole to the constitutional requirements concerning treaties. 

National and international opposition to the proposed package of agreements has been growing. On May 8, 22 state attorneys general submitted a letter to President Biden expressing opposition to the adoption of both the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the proposed amendments to the IHR. Twenty-four state governors have also sent a similar letter of opposition to the president.

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives have proposed HR 1425, which is designed “[t]o require any convention, agreement, or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response reached by the World Health Assembly to be subject to Senate ratification.” Fifty-three representatives are currently signed on as co-sponsors.

In the Senate, members have proposed a companion piece of legislation, S 444, with the same stated goal. It currently has 48 co-sponsors.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom and Slovakia have indicated that they are unwilling to sign the treaty, citing fears that the agreement will undermine their national sovereignty. In Japan, an estimated 19,000 citizens gathered in April to protest the WHO agreement and IHR amendments. Over 100 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have also sent a letter to the WHO’s director-general expressing similar opposition.

Although the text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement was expected to be finalized prior to the forthcoming World Health Assembly, which begins on May 27, as of May 24, this has not been achieved. Negotiations are expected to continue during the assembly, during which the proposed amendments to the IHR will also be presented. 

The DOJ put a pro-life grandmother in jail for protesting the killing of preborn children. Please take 30 seconds to TELL CONGRESS: STOP THE DOJ FROM TARGETING PRO-LIFE AMERICANS.

Update 6/10/2024: According to C-Fam, the World Heath Organization (WHO) has given special status to the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR). The thirty-four countries on the board of the heath agency voted, with 17 countries voting in favor, 13 voting against, and four abstaining from what C-Fam calls a “secret” vote.

“A U.S. delegate said a secret ballot was necessary to ‘ensure national positions are being reflected, recognizing that there are a number of external views and pressures that we would want to guard against,'” reported C-Fam.

The WHO secretariat packaged the vote in favor of official status to the CFF with the organization Rare Diseases International. Though there were calls to keep the two organizations separate in the vote, the U.S. delegate rejected the idea and a subsequent vote to keep them separate was defeated.

5/24/2024: Over the past few months, there has been growing discussion about a World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Agreement, the text of which has not yet been finalized, and proposed amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), which is an already-existing agreement. Critics fear that, if adopted in their current proposed forms, these agreements will threaten national sovereignty and civil liberties by granting sole authority over health policy among signatory nations to the WHO in the event of a new global pandemic.

Promoting abortion under the banner of “equity”

Although the latest draft of the pandemic agreement does not specifically mention abortion, opponents argue that its language essentially provides a back door for pro-abortion actors to meddle with individual nations’ abortion-related policies through its focus on “equity” – a term that is used repeatedly throughout the document without ever being specifically defined. 

According to C-Fam:

The concept of equity is inherently ambiguous and is expected to give the international health agency and western donors wide latitude for mischief, including promoting abortion and gender ideology.

U.S. State Department and Western government agencies define equity by reference to gender ideology, which includes abortion and homosexual/trans rights….

The concept of equity is also likely to result in interference by the international health agency into all areas of policy, not just pandemic or health policies.

According to the treaty preamble, equity requires reviewing all national policies including “social, environmental, cultural, political and economic” policies that may impact health in any way. And the treaty states that this applies “both during and between pandemics.”

The WHO is openly pro-abortion

There is good reason for pro-lifers to be suspicious of the WHO, which is manifestly pro-abortion. Its website states that the “realization of human rights[] requires that all individuals have access to quality health care, including comprehensive abortion care services[.]” It also states that access to abortion is “fundamental” to “gender equality.”

The WHO’s guidance on “safe” abortion recommends limiting healthcare workers’ conscience protections and lowering safety standards in order to maximize access to abortion. Its website openly advocates for the ‘removal’ of “laws and policies that cause barriers to quality abortion care (including criminalization of abortion, mandatory waiting periods and third-party authorization requirements)”; it also contains a database of global abortion policies, which it has described as being “intended” to “eliminate the barriers that women encounter in accessing safe abortion services.” 

READ: Arkansas AG sends cease and desist letters to mail-order abortion pill businesses

During the COVID-19 pandemic, WHO officials declared abortion to be an “essential” service, going so far as to state that women should be provided access to this “service” even if they were contagious for the coronavirus. It also encouraged the expansion of telemedicine-based DIY abortion during the pandemic.

Given that the WHO promotes abortion as “healthcare” and a “human right,” there is every reason to believe that handing over control of health policy to the agency will result in the erosion of pro-life laws and regulations.

Current status of the agreement and amendments

The Biden administration has been active in negotiating the terms of the WHO agreement. Although the United States Constitution only permits the adoption of treaties that have been approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate, some critics fear the Biden administration will try to bypass this requirement, citing the fact that the administration lobbied the WHO to rebrand the “Pandemic Treaty” as a “Pandemic Agreement” — a name change, which has, in fact, been adopted, and which the Biden administration may attempt to use as a loophole to the constitutional requirements concerning treaties. 

National and international opposition to the proposed package of agreements has been growing. On May 8, 22 state attorneys general submitted a letter to President Biden expressing opposition to the adoption of both the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the proposed amendments to the IHR. Twenty-four state governors have also sent a similar letter of opposition to the president.

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives have proposed HR 1425, which is designed “[t]o require any convention, agreement, or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response reached by the World Health Assembly to be subject to Senate ratification.” Fifty-three representatives are currently signed on as co-sponsors.

In the Senate, members have proposed a companion piece of legislation, S 444, with the same stated goal. It currently has 48 co-sponsors.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom and Slovakia have indicated that they are unwilling to sign the treaty, citing fears that the agreement will undermine their national sovereignty. In Japan, an estimated 19,000 citizens gathered in April to protest the WHO agreement and IHR amendments. Over 100 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have also sent a letter to the WHO’s director-general expressing similar opposition.

Although the text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement was expected to be finalized prior to the forthcoming World Health Assembly, which begins on May 27, as of May 24, this has not been achieved. Negotiations are expected to continue during the assembly, during which the proposed amendments to the IHR will also be presented. 

The DOJ put a pro-life grandmother in jail for protesting the killing of preborn children. Please take 30 seconds to TELL CONGRESS: STOP THE DOJ FROM TARGETING PRO-LIFE AMERICANS.