July 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw the United States from the corrupt, ineffective, pro-China World Health Organization (WHO) has angered a lot of people at home and abroad … not because it will negatively impact global health but because it’ll negatively impact the agendas and bottom lines of various groups that have been exploiting the guise of “health services.”
And nobody has worn that disguise more effectively than the abortion industry, whose allies go all the way to the top of the global health establishment. The WHO’s website declares as “essential” the “right” to “access to legal and safe abortion.” Over the past few months, it has pushed self-induced chemical abortions via webcam as a substitute for tthe various abortion facilities temporarily shut down due to COVID-19.
So it’s only natural that Planned Parenthood’s former research arm, the Guttmacher Institute, would come out against withdrawal. Ironically, however, their report – which frames it as a “tantrum” to stop subsidizing an organization co-opted by a corrupt, murderous Communist dictatorship – inadvertently makes the pro-life case for withdrawal perfectly:
WHO is the leading source for technical and policy guidance on a wide range of topics related to sexual and reproductive health and rights. When countries, partners and even U.S. government agencies want to improve their policies and clinical guidelines, they first look to WHO for sound, scientific and robust information in multiple languages [...]
The Trump administration’s choice to withdraw the United States from the WHO is shortsighted and ill-informed. Not only will it hamper global and U.S. responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, it will undermine the progress made on sexual and reproductive health over the past several decades. The loss of funding and technical partnership with the United States will mean that fewer people around the world will receive the care that they want and need.
That may sound like a bad thing, but only if one doesn’t know that “sexual and reproductive health” is code for legal, widespread, and cheap/free abortions. For Guttmacher to openly acknowledge that WHO is an active player in the policy fight for abortion only reinforces the conclusion that the U.S. should not be forcing taxpayers to fund something that champions policies opposed by more than half of those taxpayers.
In between these two paragraphs, Guttmacher lists various examples of innocuous-sounding healthcare work (mixed in with more “reproductive health” references, plus LGBT “needs” to boot). But the idea that the WHO has to be the middleman for American support of global health is preposterous.
Even a brief search yields scores of other non-government organizations working in global health, which could be supported (pending review of their values and effectiveness, of course). And, obviously, the government can (and already does) send foreign aid directly to countries to assist with their health needs.
What sets organizations like the WHO apart is smuggling in left-wing ideology and objectives alongside these services. Thankfully, that scam won’t fly anymore with the current administration.