In a bold move reinforcing state sovereignty against globalism, Oklahoma Republican Governor Kevin Stitt signed into law SB 426, a bill that explicitly denies jurisdiction to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), and the World Economic Forum (WEF) within the state, making the state the second in the nation to impose such a measure. The legislation, which took effect on June 1, underscores Oklahoma’s commitment to local governance and autonomy, stressed the bill’s authors.
Key Provisions
The new law, codified as Section 6301 of Title 74 in the Oklahoma Statutes, articulates that “the World Health Organization, the United Nations, and the World Economic Forum have no jurisdiction in this state.” The bill details that the state and its political subdivisions — including counties, cities, towns, precincts, water districts, school districts, and quasi-public entities — are not obligated to enforce or collaborate with any mandates issued by the WHO, UN, or WEF. Furthermore, any such mandates will not be recognized as a basis for action within the state. This includes directives related to public health measures such as mask-wearing, vaccinations, medical testing, or the collection of public or private information about Oklahoma’s citizens.
Legislative Intent and Support
Governor Stitt took to X to celebrate the new law, saying, “We aren’t buying what the WHO, WEF, and UN are selling. We value our freedom — and that means keeping their agenda far away from Oklahoma.”
The bill’s co-sponsor in the Oklahoma House of Representatives, Rep. Rick West (R), posited in a press release on Stitt’s signing of the act that “the act became necessary after Biden administration officials expressed support of the creation of a new pandemic treaty to reform International Health Regulations” that were meant to transfer national sovereignty to the WHO.
West further elaborated,
The Biden Administration has proven ready and willing to accept mandates proposed by these non-elected global organizations that would severely limit the personal liberties of all Oklahomans and Americans. I’m glad the majority of our legislative members stood together and said no to this intrusion.
Senator George Burns (R), the principal author of the measure, highlighted the importance of local decision-making in matters that affect the state’s residents, stating,
This legislation stands as a testament to our commitment to protecting the rights and liberties of Oklahomans. By prohibiting the enforcement of mandates and recommendations from the World Health Organization, the United Nations, or the World Economic Forum, we ensure that the decisions affecting our residents are made by their elected representatives and local authorities.
Governor Stitt has been consistent in opposing the WHO. On May 22, he and 23 other governors signed a letter to President Joe Biden urging him to oppose proposed amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR) and a new pandemic treaty that were under consideration in late May. The governors cited concerns over the documents granting the WHO “the authority to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens, including freedoms such as speech, privacy, travel, choice of medical care, and informed consent, thus violating our Constitution’s core principles.”
It is worth noting that on May 31, after two years of negotiations spearheaded by the United States, the World Health Assembly (WHA) of the WHO passed amendments to the IHR and committed to completing pandemic treaty talks within a year. According to experts within the medical freedom movement, fortunately, many critical proposals were ultimately excluded from the final set of amendments. Those included implementation of digital IDs (vaccine passports); powers to impose medical mandates and regulate the use of medications, as well as redistribute them among the countries; and other egregious proposals. At the same time, there is an argument that the WHO will persist in attempting to pass these proposals in the future. Therefore, there’s a need for both lawmakers and citizens to oppose the WHO’s initiatives and, ideally, withdraw from the WHO altogether.
States’ Legislative Efforts
The enactment of Oklahoma’s SB 426 comes amid escalating concerns regarding the potential expansion of the WHO’s powers, paired with discontent with federal overreach in healthcare.
For instance, Louisiana has also barred the influence of the WHO, UN, and WEF. On May 28, its governor, Jeff Landry, signed into law SB 133, which provides that “No rule, regulation, fee, tax, policy, or mandate of any kind of the World Health Organization, United Nations, and the World Economic Forum shall be enforced or implemented by the state of Louisiana” or any of its political and civil entities.
On May 20, the Alabama House passed Joint Resolution No. 113, calling on the federal government to “cease funding and supporting the World Health Organization and to reject any international health regulations regarding pandemic preparedness.”
On January 31, Utah Governor Spencer Cox (R) signed into law Senate Bill 57, the “Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act,” which prohibits “enforcement of a federal directive within the state by government officers if the Legislature determines the federal directive violates the principles of state sovereignty.”
In May 2023, Florida passed Senate Bill 252, titled “Protection from Discrimination Based on Health Care Choices.” Among other things, it prohibits businesses and public entities from requiring proof of Covid-19 vaccination or prophylaxis for employment, receipt of services, or gaining entry to such entities.
And several other states, including Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Wyoming, have proposed or are considering legislation targeting globalist “healthcare” overreach in the 2024 session.
Veronika Kyrylenko, Ph.D. is a senior editor of The New American.
Twitter: @niki_kyrylenko
GETTR: @vkyrylenko
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nkyrylenko/