Share this article
  • The Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This means that the regulation of healthcare falls to the states. For example, doctors, pharmacies and hospitals are administered by the state, not by the federal government.
  • This is why Louisiana’s Senate unanimously passed a bill 37 to zero telling the world that neither the WHO, the UN nor the WEF could assert any jurisdiction over health or any other matter in the state of Louisiana.
  • This is why the Florida legislature passed a bill last year allowing the WHO no authority over the state of Florida.
  • On the last full day of the Obama administration, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Disease Control issued a Final Rule that changed the definition of a Public Health Emergency of international Concern. It was to be defined 5 ways, but 3 of those ways relied on a WHO decision.
  • This rule was challenged in a petition to DHHS by 15 state Attorneys General in 2023. They pointed out that, “The rule exceeds the agency’s authority and infringes on US and state sovereignty by unlawfully delegating to the World Health Organization the authority to invoke health emergency powers solely based on decisions of the WHO.”
  • The AGs further noted that Congress’ assent would be needed to delegate such authority via treaty ratification to the WHO. They assert that executive agreements, which “rely solely on the President’s authority in foreign relations… lack any domestic effect without an act of Congress,” and that the unratified WHO Constitution is not a binding treaty.
  • Furthermore, according to the AGs, Congress approved participation with the WHO “with the understanding that nothing in the Constitution of the World Health Organization in any manner commits the United States to enact any specific legislative program regarding any matters referred to in said constitution,” referencing 22 U.S.C. 290d, while noting that 42 U.S.C. 264 (e) warns the federal government not to preempt state powers regarding control of infectious diseases.
  • Finally, when the US federal government signed the WHO’s amended International Health Regulations in 2006, it filed a reservation acknowledging the states’ rights authority over some health matters. The reservation said, in part, “… these regulations to be implemented by the Federal Government or the state governments, as appropriate and in accordance with our Constitution, to the extent that the implementation of these obligations comes under the legal jurisdiction of the Federal Government. To the extent that such obligations come under the legal jurisdiction of the state governments, the Federal Government shall bring such obligations with a favorable recommendation to the notice of the appropriate state authorities.

Therefore, there is a strong legal basis to assert that the states not only have authority over their citizens’ healthcare regulation, but that the federal government lacks the authority to delegate any such power to the WHO.

Meryl Nass, MD

March 31, 2024

Similar Posts

  • ‘Putin could switch everything off’: how cashless Sweden went too far

    Share this article

    It is the Swedish thing to do to have coffee and cake in the morning. It is, however, unusual to be doing so with a former head of Interpol. Björn Eriksson has spent much of his professional life hunting criminals, coordinating police forces and running national emergency drills. Now his chief security concern is his country’s erasure of cash…

  • Global Governance + Control of the Human Genome

    Share this article

    How are decisions made in Europe and at the WHO? Where does the power lie? Could unelected paid actors be dictating state and global health decisions for private gain? Wolfgang Wodarg, M.D., Ph.D., former Member of Parliament and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe examines the criminal business of…

  • Social Credit Score: Fiction or Reality?

    Share this article

    The concept of a social credit system is based on a government-run credit rating system that assigns score and trustworthiness to its citizens and businesses, which could be blacklisted or whitelisted based on the score itself. China’s social credit system started as a regional trial in 2009 and was expanded into a national pilot with eight credit scoring firms in 2014…