WHO Director Makes Total Mockery of the Truth with Grim Abortion Declaration
You may remember World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who played a starring role in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. He is best known for turning a blind eye to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s lies and corruption.
Speaking with Xi in Beijing in January 2020, Tedros praised him for “the seriousness with which China is taking this outbreak, especially the commitment from top leadership and the transparency they have demonstrated.” [Emphasis added.]
In February, Tedros criticized then-President Donald Trump and other world leaders for banning travel from China. He said, “There is no reason for measures that unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade.” According to CNN, Tedros even thanked China for “making us safer.”
And it wasn’t until March 11 of that year that the organization he leads declared the coronavirus a global pandemic.
One would think Tedros’ gross mishandling of the COVID-19 crisis disqualifies him as an authority on global public health.
Although the WHO is meant to be an apolitical organization, Tedros has injected himself into the debate over Roe v. Wade, the hot-button political issue of the day in America.
Adding to the disinformation coming from the hysterical American left, Tedros took to Twitter to proclaim, “Restricting access to #abortion does not reduce the number of procedures — it drives women and girls towards unsafe ones. Access to safe abortion saves lives.”
Women should always have the right to choose when it comes to their bodies and their health. Restricting access to #abortion does not reduce the number of procedures — it drives women and girls towards unsafe ones. Access to safe abortion saves lives. https://t.co/SdF81B5D1u
— Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (@DrTedros) May 4, 2022
As we all know, the draft opinion of a Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked and published by Politico on Monday night. If indeed Roe is overturned, all this means is that abortion laws would be determined by the states.
Pro-abortion activists are portraying this as a nationwide ban on the procedure, which is wildly inaccurate.
Some states will place significant restrictions on abortions while others, like New York and California, where limitations are nearly nonexistent, will continue to permit them. While it’s impossible to predict an exact number, it’s likely that abortion will remain legal in over half of the states.
It’s 2022. Millions of Americans cross state lines every day for work, shopping, visiting friends, going to concerts or for any one of a thousand reasons. Is it too onerous for a woman seeking an abortion to travel to a neighboring state?
Or, better yet, to maybe address the situation sooner rather than later?
Many states will continue allowing abortions up to a certain point of pregnancy. For example, Texas law currently prohibits the procedure after the sixth week of pregnancy. Some states will likely use 16 weeks as the cutoff.
Why would a woman who doesn’t want her baby choose to wait until the second or even the third trimester to end her pregnancy anyway?
And yes, I know there’s always that woman who claims she didn’t know she was pregnant until she gave birth; those cases are rare. The truth is that most women recognize they’re pregnant almost immediately.
Or perhaps, knowing that abortion will be limited in their state, women should stop using the procedure as a form of birth control and practice contraception instead.
At any rate, the fearmongering over handing responsibility back to the states has led to reckless distortions of reality from Democratic politicians, the legacy media and pro-abortion activist groups.
In a debate during a broadcast of Fox News’ “The Five” this week, co-host Geraldo Rivera said, “Cherish the wire hanger stuck up their privates trying to get – ” He was abruptly (and rightly) cut off by his colleague, Greg Gutfeld, who called him out for his dishonesty. The argument escalated to the point where Rivera called Gutfeld an “insulting punk.”
Tedros’ decision to pile on and add to the disinformation swirling around this issue strikes me as a dereliction of duty.
But given his history of duplicity and corruption, why would we expect anything different?
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.