As we close in on the third anniversary of “15 days to slow the spread,” world bureaucratic leaders have come closer to the formal release of a document purporting to guide how we handle the next pandemic. We alerted you a couple weeks ago, “The means of accomplishing this is via a new treaty dubbed the WHO Convention, Agreement or Other International Instrument on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response, also known as the WHO CA+.” Yes, calling it WHO CA+ does save a mouthful, but it’s also brought up a lot of legitimate questions on how it would affect U.S. sovereignty and resources.

While WHO CA+ is still being drafted — negotiators spent last week beginning to hash out its details after the initial release last month, with a final draft not expected until next year — two things are worth pointing out: Our national interests are being “represented” by the Biden administration, and the WHO leadership, particularly WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghbreyesus, is in the pocket of China. (These two things may be one and the same, though.) Because of that, detailed criticism from pro-American commentators is to be expected — and welcomed.

Looking at it from a constitutional perspective was author and columnist Scott Powell, who noted that Joe Biden supported a similar failed proposal before the World Health Assembly last year. Now he may have a new way to work around the treaty ratification process.

Under the U.S. Constitution, healthcare does not fall under the authority of the federal government, but remains in the domain of the states under the 10th Amendment. When Biden signs this accord, that constitutional protection may be lost.

This agreement calls for member states to implement “One Health” surveillance, which is so broad that it can include environmental, climate, or even agricultural emissions to be used in claims that CO₂ or other emissions pose a health emergency. In addition, this accord opens the door to information and ideological corruption, which comes out of accord language providing for “design[ing] communications and messaging strategies for the public to counteract misinformation, disinformation and false news, thereby strengthening public trust.”

The specter of disaster for Americans seems obvious with a corrupt leader entering into an agreement with a corrupt institution.

Healthcare policy expert Betsy McCaughey adds: “The treaty’s defenders claim that nothing would allow WHO to meddle in how the U.S. responds domestically to a pandemic. But the actual wording of Article 4 proves otherwise. It states that each country will manage its own domestic health policies provided these policies ‘do not cause damage to their peoples and other countries.’ You can drive a truck through that exception.”

In our government’s case, it may be an electric truck, but certainly the Biden administration would drive the truck through just the same.

Since this proposal doesn’t seem to be slipping through the cracks, the charges of WHO CA+ eroding our sovereignty have already been “fact-checked” by “experts.” Two of these, from USA Today and PolitiFact, used a total of three academics and the World Health Organization to “debunk” the claims in a number of conservative-leaning outlets made about the WHO CA+. One of the academics, Lawrence Gostin, director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University, was used in both instances and defended the WHO proposal he helped to draft, saying “This [usurpation of sovereignty] narrative is so far from the truth that it is dangerous and malicious.”

PolitiFact summarized Gostin’s further remarks (emphasis ours): “Like any international treaty, it may technically be legally binding, but Gostin said the draft often uses the word ‘should,’ rather than ‘shall’ or ‘must,’ something critics have said doesn’t give the treaty any real teeth.” Gostin himself added, “If it is truly mandatory, it is for rapid reporting of outbreaks, scientific sharing, and contributing to global equity, such as vaccine donations.”

Think China will be first in line on that rapid reporting or scientific sharing? Think American bureaucrats in the mold of Anthony Fauci won’t be overly eager to adhere to whatever the global bureaucrats say? And we bet we know who will be tapped first to provide that contribution to “global equity.”

It amazes us how quickly Meta’s zillions, which resulted in a “partnership” with PolitiFact and an outright grant to USA Today, circled the wagons on this one. Perhaps the flak is coming because the critics are right over the target?