Representative Chip Roy introduces bill to defund the WHO – hooray – because of abortion? Wait, what?
From here:
Good news on the defunding, but why because of abortion? States and countries have the right to determine the approach that suits their own people. The WHO should not support or disapprove of abortion, neither should Chip Roy – it is none of their business. Advise on societal impacts and safety, even advocacy, sure.
For what it’s worth, my personal OPINION, is that life is precious and a miracle. I find the thought of abortion being used as a prophylactic abhorrent. BUT, I can understand the personal circumstances supersede that OPINION. Do I consider abortion to be murder? Yes. Justifiable homicide? Maybe. Does it depend on term? Yes, it is harder and harder for me to support abortion beyond around the 15-20 week mark. But, I stress, this is an OPINION. Should my opinion be imposed on society or the world at large? Hell no. Neither should the WHO’s or Chip Roy’s.
Anyway, there are many reasons to withdraw US funding of the WHO, most are due to its abject failure as an organization. US withdrawal of funding does not solve this problem – indeed, it would allow it to pursue policies that are abject failures. Of course, Resident Biden’s administration is part and parcel of the failure.
The US AID budget is U$60 billion a year (WikiPedia misrepresents it and says it is U$27 billion)
The US has 40 million illegal (economic) immigrants. These immigrants remove their ability to help their home countries and instead place a burden on the US whilst the overseas aid goes to make up the shortfall caused by their move to domestic US sponsored welfare.
(Note – legal migration is fantastic – allowing freedom of movement of labour is a good thing. Freedom of movement that is not factored into the planning of small settlements, towns, cities, States and countries is illegal because criminals can be part of illegal immigrant caravans and boats – escaping from punishment in their home countries, or victims of child trafficking, drug trafficking, prostitution and so on and so forth.
There is a limitless demand for welfare in countries foolish enough to have open borders. See here for demand. Is there a sufficient tax base to pay for this? No, western countries run massive fiscal deficits already and are bankrupt, with government debt to GDP beyond any possibility of repayment, ever.
Budget Justification | U.S. Agency for International Development (usaid.gov)
The UK Government spends one half of one per cent of GDP – GDP is around 2 trillion pounds, so around 10 billion pounds or U$12 billion goes on aid. This is down from 0.7% of GDP In 2020. Ironically, the UK has around 2 million illegal (economic) immigrants that have deprived their own countries of their talents in order to burden the UK. Link to an article ridiculing the UK aid efforts here. The UK government is not alone in fomenting ignorance, stupidity and corruption by depriving its citizens of their own money. Every government does it.
So, that’s the US and UK waving around U$72 billion that could be used to improve the health, sanitation, education and infrastructure of countries that is on top of WHO, World Bank and IMF auspices.
How about Japan, the EU, Canada and Australia?
Japan is a big donor – US$6 billion, mostly to UNICEF and sub-Saharan Africa,
The EU has a budget of around US$50 billion
Canada has a budget of around US$8 billion
Other western nations make big contributions relative to the size of their economies. Sweden is one country that is waking up to the fiscal reality of the impact of mass immigration (10% of Sweden is born outside – slightly less than the US).
“Website Donor Tracker says Sweden was the world's eighth-biggest international aid donor in terms of absolute value last year, and the third-biggest in proportion to the size of its economy, donating 0.92 per cent of its gross national income, behind Luxembourg and Norway.”
Australia just upped its overseas aid budget to around US$5 billion.
Call it US$200 billion dollars a year. This excludes any portion of around half a trillion bucks that is donated to charities that goes to overseas aid.
Now, let’s look at just two signals of the success of 200 billion dollars a year - a trillion bucks every five years.
My bet is that more than half of this “overseas aid” money goes on administration for bureaucrats because it sure as hell is not preventing starvation of disease.
“Around 9 million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases. This is more than from AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined.”
This is down somewhat from decades ago, but it should have been entirely eradicated by now. Same goes for pneumonia. 2.5 million die every year – there may be some overlap with the numbers for starvation, but still, a few cents for antibiotics would prevent these deaths. Although injecting people with toxic vaccines will kill them anyway, courtesy of the BMGF and WHO.
There is more than enough food so that no-one starves and more than enough money to pay for all the health, education, sanitation, irrigation, crop seeds, and so on and so forth – many many times over.
Why isn’t it? Every facet of life in the west depends on bureaucrats that cost money and deliver very little. If the WEF suggested that bureaucracy could be reduced by 90% with better outcomes and lower taxes, that would be great. As it is, bureaucracies like overseas aid “departments” of countries and the UN subsidiaries like the UN IPCC and WHO waste hundreds of billions of dollars that impoverish the west whilst not enriching the third world – preventing the improvement in living standards in both the west and the third world.
Onwards!
I drink a lot of coffee – if you like my “stuff” but don’t want to pay for a subscription you can buy me a cup to show (any!) appreciation here: https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan
Go get em Chip !
Peter I fully agree with you on the abortion issue.