Rep. Chris Smith raises concerns about the WHO ‘pandemic treaty’ due to potential ‘abortion on demand
Rep. Chris Smith Raises Concerns Over WHO’s ”Pandemic Treaty”
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) has expressed alarm over the World Health Organization’s proposed “pandemic treaty,” citing its potential infringement on national sovereignty and the organization’s stance on abortion. Smith, along with Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) and several experts, held a press briefing to shed light on the dangers posed by the treaty, which is set for a vote on May 27.
Threats to American Independence and Rights
The WHO’s Pandemic Agreement aims to strengthen global pandemic prevention and response by establishing a binding agreement among countries. However, Smith highlighted several problematic aspects of the treaty, including a provision that member countries must maintain access to “essential health services” during pandemics, which the WHO interprets as including abortion.
Smith, chairman of the Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, emphasized that the WHO considers abortion to be a human right, as stated on their website. He expressed concern that the international agreement would compel member countries to support “abortion on demand,” a position the WHO seems ready to endorse.
WHO’s Advocacy for Abortion
Last summer, the WHO intensified its support for legal abortion by signing a Memorandum of Understanding aimed at promoting abortion access in Europe. It also granted “official relations” status to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, an organization advocating for late-term abortion. In May, the WHO will vote on granting the same status to the Center for Reproductive Rights, another legal abortion advocacy group.
Smith criticized these actions, stating that both the WHO and these organizations actively lobby for changes in law to promote unrestricted abortion. He highlighted a letter from a coalition of 33 anti-abortion organizations urging the WHO to refrain from partnering with the Center for Reproductive Rights, citing their extensive efforts to undermine laws protecting unborn children.
Concerns Over Funding and Disinformation
The agreement also raises questions about funding, as member countries will be required to contribute financially. However, the specifics of the funding mechanism remain unclear until the end of 2026, after the agreement is adopted.
Additionally, the treaty calls for efforts to combat false information, which has drawn criticism due to the WHO’s own handling of COVID-19 and its dissemination of talking points from China. Smith expressed concern that this clause on “disinformation” could stifle dissent from scientists and doctors who disagree with the WHO’s conclusions.
Smith called on the Biden administration to ensure that the treaty is submitted to the Senate for constitutional advice and consent, emphasizing that bypassing the Senate would be a significant mistake.
The WHO did not respond to a request for comment from the Washington Examiner.
How could the production of this provision in the treaty potentially override countries’ own laws and cultural norms regarding abortion services?
Roduction of this provision in the treaty could potentially force countries to provide abortion services, even if it contradicts their own laws and cultural norms.
Smith further raised concerns about the infringement on national sovereignty that the treaty could entail. The treaty proposes the establishment of a WHO body with the power to investigate and assess countries’ pandemic responses, as well as to make recommendations for action. Smith worries that this could lead to a loss of autonomy for individual nations, with decisions about their pandemic response being overridden by an international organization.
The Need for Congressional Oversight
In light of these concerns, Smith stressed the importance of congressional oversight in the decision-making process. He argued that such a significant agreement should not be made without the input and consent of the American people through their elected representatives. Smith called for transparency and accountability, urging Congress to thoroughly review the treaty and its implications before moving forward.
During the press briefing, Rep. Brad Wenstrup echoed Smith’s concerns and emphasized the need for a balanced approach. He suggested that while global cooperation is crucial in pandemic response, it should not come at the expense of national sovereignty and individual rights. Wenstrup emphasized the importance of respecting the diversity of cultural and legal frameworks across countries, rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all solution.
Expert Opinions
The press briefing also featured comments from several experts who shared their concerns about the proposed treaty. Dr. David Prentice, Vice President of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, highlighted the potential conflict between the treaty and the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions. He warned that if the treaty is ratified, it could create pressure for the U.S. to provide funding for abortion services globally, even against the wishes of American taxpayers.
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D., Associate Director of Research for the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam), raised concerns about the impact of the treaty on the rights of healthcare providers who have conscientious objections to providing abortion services. She argued that the treaty’s interpretation of “essential health services” could undermine the rights of medical professionals who hold pro-life beliefs.
A Call for Caution and Consideration
In conclusion, Rep. Chris Smith and other experts warn about the potential threats posed by the World Health Organization’s proposed pandemic treaty. They highlight concerns about the treaty’s interpretation of “essential health services,” which may include abortion, as well as worries about the infringement on national sovereignty and individual rights. They call for transparency, accountability, and congressional oversight in the decision-making process. This treaty, if ratified, could have far-reaching implications, and it is vital to carefully consider and address these concerns before proceeding.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
