If the Washington Post is for it, there’s normally a good case why social conservatives should be against it.
Earlier this week, President Trump announced that the United States will be withdrawing from the World Health Organization (WHO), an association first established by the United Nations in 1948.
A one-year notice prior to officially breaking ties is required.
Predictably, Jeff Bezos’ newspaper calls America’s announced exit “a grave mistake” that will lead to not only more of our own citizens dying from various diseases but also the return of deadly childhood maladies around the world.
Designated as Executive Order 13987, President Trump’s directive cites “the organization’s mishandling of COVID-19 … its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states.”
Trump’s order also notes that the United States has been paying far more than any other country, stating, “China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO.”
Excessive dues and the mishandling of the COVID outbreak aren’t the only problems with the WHO, which is unapologetically pro-abortion.
“Abortion is a common health intervention,” states the WHO. “It is very safe when carried out using a method recommended by WHO, appropriate to the pregnancy duration and by someone with the necessary skills. However, around 45% of abortions are unsafe. Unsafe abortion is an important preventable cause of maternal deaths and morbidities.”
In fact, abortion isn’t a “common health intervention” but rather the killing of innocent life. It’s also not safe. Statistically speaking, one hundred percent of children involved in abortion die. It’s certainly not “safe” for the child.
Shortly after Roe’s reversal, the WHO called for the “full decriminalization of abortion” and advocated against any laws that restrict the killing of preborn children or have any gestational limits. In other words, the global so-called health organization is in favor of abortion on-demand.
How exactly does that improve women’s or the world’s health?
The World Health Organization claims an interest in protecting and preserving every life minus the most innocent in the womb.
Critics of the decision warn America’s departure will not only lead to a global health crisis but also create a leadership vacuum likely filled by China.
Consisting of 194 member states, the WHO has received anywhere from between $163 million and $816 million annually from the United States. With dues from other nations and ongoing fundraising efforts, the organization’s most recent budget was just over $10 billion.
In addition to struggling to corral the COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO has been criticized for bungling the 2014 Ebola outbreak in western Africa, as well as its past failure to eradicate malaria.
But any organization claiming to center its existence on a foundation of saving lives only to champion the killing of the most innocent surrenders any moral authority it may have one day enjoyed.
In a statement issued from its Geneva headquarters, the WHO concluded:
We hope the United States will reconsider and we look forward to engaging in constructive dialogue to maintain the partnership between the USA and WHO, for the benefit of the health and well-being of millions of people around the globe.
If they’re truly serious about protecting the world’s health, the WHO would be wise to protect every life in the world, including babies in the womb.
Image from Shutterstock.
The post Why Won’t WHO Protect You Know Who? appeared first on Daily Citizen.
Daily Citizen