Yet Another Reason To Leave the WHO

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive order withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). The Executive order referenced the United States’ notice to withdraw from the WHO in 2020, citing the mishandling of COVID-19, failure to reform, and unfair financial demands – pointing to the fact that China contributes 90% less than the U.S.

The recent publication, 70 Years of Population Policy (70 Years), published by the ACLJ’s international subsidiary, the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ), provides further evidence for the need to leave the WHO. In 2020, several reasons were given for such a move. In particular, Chinese influence over the organization and a lack of effectiveness in responding to the Coronavirus pandemic were grave concerns. 70 Years reinforces the idea that the WHO has also become a formidable weapon in the service of the global abortion lobby. The secretive WHO Programme, the Human Reproduction Programme (HRP), has been working since 1970 to develop and distribute the main abortifacients used today – and they are aided by funding from a number of governments and private foundations.

WHO: Science at the Service of Activism

In 2019, the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation (STBF), billionaire Warren Buffett’s foundation named after his late wife, pledged $100 million in funding to the HRP, which accounted for nearly 10% of all the Programme revenues since its inception. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF)has also pledged $3 and $4 million a year over the period 2019-2022 (bearing in mind that Warren Buffett also largely funds the Gates Foundation). Several governments, particularly in Scandinavia, and private foundations also provide financial support: Ford, Rockefeller, MacArthur, Packard, Hewlett. However, the 11 main nation contributors each get a seat on the HRP’s governing body, giving them political clout. The International Planned Parenthood Federation(IPPF) also has a seat, de jure.

These players invest in the Human Reproduction Programme due to its established scientific authority. Since its foundation, the HRP has conducted high-level scientific research with the aim of developing abortifacient substances. This included conducting trials to determine optimal dosages of products for inducing abortion and assessing their effectiveness. Between 1999 and 2007, the HRP spent $1.7 million on research regarding medical abortion. Simultaneously, the Programme published guides designed to promote the widespread adoption of these abortifacient methods.

Building on this, in 2022 the HRP released updated consolidated guidelines on abortion. This document advocates for a radical and unprecedented liberalization of abortion worldwide. Among its recommendations are the legalization of abortion on demand and without restrictions throughout the entire pregnancy (pp. 24 and 28), limiting the freedom of conscience for medical professionals (p. 41 ff.), and allowing abortions for minors without informing their parents (p. 43). This document was drafted by individuals known for their militancy and by major private and international organizations dedicated to promoting abortion worldwide. In fact, 67% of the experts consulted by the WHO to draw up these guidelines are committed to abortion and have been pro-abortion activists – even paid by private organizations promoting abortion. For instance, in 2012, Patricia Lohr received more than $110,000 from the Society of Family Planning and the SFP Researcher Fund to conduct a study on the use of intracardiac potassium chloride as a feticide prior to abortion.

A Strategy for Imposing Abortifacient Standards

While these guidelines are not legally binding, they are part of a soft law, or non-binding legal, environment. The Programme develops abortifacient methods and sets out recommendations. These are then proposed to nations, which are then accused of being “anti-science” if they refuse to adopt it as policy. These recommendations are also used as weapons by activists to wage lawfare against conservative nations in international courts. Thus the proponents of this pro-abortion population control Programme use euphemistic scientific and human rights language to put pressure on states to accept anti-natalist methods, particularly abortion.

The HRP is directed by a small group of actors, toward a social Neo-Malthusianism promoted by the countries of the global north, encouraging greater regulation of the poorest populations in the countries of the global south. In 1980, the WHO Director-General confirmed the HRP’s focus on developing countries. Out of the 70 countries represented by researchers involved in the Programme’s activities, 45 were developing countries. Established in 1970, the HRP was designed with the goal of improving health and economic prosperity through demographic reduction. The initiative was largely driven by economic concerns, particularly from Northern European countries and major neo-liberal foundations who funded the Programme with a focus on addressing the demographic challenges of the world’s poorest nations.

Over time, the initial economic fears that underpinned the HRP – essentially a form of neo-colonialism – became increasingly difficult to justify. In response, the HRP shifted its narrative to emphasize human rights, reframing abortion as a fundamental aspect of “sexual and reproductive health.” Simultaneously, various nations and advocacy groups worked to establish this as a global human rights standard. However, in practice, it was largely rhetorical. While the WHO’s mandate is to promote health, the underlying objective in this case appears to be population reduction, particularly among the most disadvantaged social groups.

Today, the discourse continues to evolve, with each party offering a “good reason” for needing to control demographics. While the concern in the 1950s was primarily economic, today it is framed as a climate issue. A striking example is Canada’s “One Planet, One Child” campaign, which in 2020 featured billboards declaring that “the greatest gift you can give your first child is not to have a second.” In all these instances, the right to health is being leveraged to advance a strategy of imposing global standards under the guise of scientific neutrality. At the forefront of this approach is the WHO’s Human Reproduction Programme.

Today, however, an increasing number of nations are pushing back against this strategy. This was clearly evident during a WHO debate in June 2024, when a broad coalition of nations, led by Egypt, opposed the organization’s pro-abortion stance. The WHO had sought to strengthen its ties with the Center for Reproductive Rights, but this move was met with significant resistance. Additionally, the ACLJ’s international affiliate, the ECLJ, continues to collaborate with WHO member states in advocating for a different approach – one that promotes life, not abortion, death, and population control.

Louis-Marie Bonneau, ECLJ Research Fellow and author of a book on the history of the World Health Organization’s Human Reproduction Programme, recently published by Ethics Press.