Censorship, SCOTUS, and the WHO

What does Missouri v. Biden have to do with the World Health Organization?

Guest post by Health Freedom Louisiana co-Director Jill Hines

Undoubtedly, one of the most surreal experiences in my life is being a plaintiff in one of the most consequential lawsuits of our time, Missouri v. Biden.  This historic censorship case includes evidence that our federal government used social media platforms to censor American speech about some of the most critical social events of our time, including the COVID pandemic. 

On March 18th, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will hear an appeal from the defendants, in this case, the government. (Because the government is fighting the lower rulings, the case name flips to name a government official, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, first, so the case before SCOTUS is now referred to as Murthy v. Missouri1.)  SCOTUS will determine if the preliminary injunction, originally put in place by United States District Chief Judge Terry Doughty on July 4, 2023, will remain in place, thus preventing further communication with social media companies for the intent of censoring otherwise free speech. A preliminary injunction stops a party from committing more harm while the slow wheels of justice turn. The outcome of this appeal has vast implications on what our society will look like going forward, especially in light of the 2024 presidential election, because it will determine whether and how the government can use social media to push out their message and agenda. 

The stakes are unbelievably high.

Originally filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana in June of 2022, Missouri v. Biden has revealed a government censorship apparatus that touches almost every federal agency. While shocking in scope, the evidence provided in discovery through emails, depositions, and public comments from high-ranking government officials has left little doubt of the government’s intent to censor and the means by which censorship was achieved.

As a matter of fact, in his July 4th ruling2 granting the now contested preliminary injunction, Judge Doughty wrote:

“The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country.

Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it in terms of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.’”

Judge Doughty’s footnote describing an “Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’” is chilling. He notes:

An “Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’” refers to the concept presented in George Orwell’s dystopian novel, ‘1984.’ In the novel, the Ministry of Truth is a governmental institution responsible for altering historical records and disseminating propaganda to manipulate and control public perception.

The briefs in Missouri v. Biden have revealed an appalling arrogance among high ranking government officials who are intent on not only policing America’s words but thoughts, as well. For example, Jen Easterly, Director of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), stated:

“One could argue that we’re in the business of protecting critical infrastructure, and the most critical infrastructure is our cognitive infrastructure,” Easterly said. “We now live in a world where people talk about alternative facts, post-truth, which I think is really, really dangerous if people get to pick their own facts,” Easterly said.”3

This type of rhetoric from unelected government bureaucrats is incredibly disturbing, especially considering the events of the last four years, when the need for public discourse was undoubtedly at its zenith. 

In another instance, an email to former White House Senior COVID-19 Advisor Andy Slavitt reveals a diabolical plan to manipulate the public perception of COVID vaccines by suppressing “often-true content” about an individual’s “personal experiences and concerns about the vaccine, but can be framed as sensation, alarmist, or shocking.” The Facebook employee goes on to state that Facebook will “remove these Groups, Pages, and Accounts when they are disproportionately promoting this sensationalized content.”4

We now know that by utilizing censorship, the government curated a story of fear and despair about COVID that was very well out of proportion to what may have happened without oppressive public health policy. The government, working in lockstep with the World Health Organization, suppressed effective treatments, convinced us to allow our loved ones to suffer and die alone, manipulated public perception about vaccines, created and prolonged a panic that gave an excuse for legislatures to implement broad mail-in and curbside voting schemes, blocked our free movement and association, interfered with the practice of religion, convinced and coerced hundreds of millions of Americans to take an unsafe vaccine, suppressed the stories of individuals killed and injured by the vaccines, and marginalized the voices of those sharing the catastrophic harm they have experienced.

The government has no intention to stop censoring Americans.

Incredibly, one of the more disturbing facts revealed during the May 2023 preliminary injunction hearing before Judge Doughty is the government’s intention to continue censoring Americans.

At one point, Judge Doughty bluntly asked the government’s attorneys: 

THE COURT [JUDGE DOUGHTY]:  You’ve got a 2024 election that’s going to be a hotly contested election coming up.  So how can I be sure that this is not going to happen again, that the government is not going to tie up with the Election Integrity Project again and start suppressing or asking this stuff to be suppressed?

Y’all are telling me it’s not going to happen.

The response from the government’s attorney stunned everyone in the room, myself included. 

MS. SNOW:  Your Honor, two responses to that.  And, first of all, it is not the government’s argument that, you know, this, you know, will never happen again.  It is the government’s position that the conduct here, everything that plaintiffs are challenging, they haven’t shown a violation of the First Amendment.  They haven’t shown state action to even get to the question of whether there’s been a First Amendment violation.  There’s nothing unlawful about the government’s use of the bully pulpit or these communications with social media companies.

But the question for the Court is whether plaintiffs have presented evidence that they will be irreparably harmed.  And they bear the burden of showing that the conduct is ongoing in such a way that they will be irreparably harmed.

And they haven’t shown that.  The record shows that much of the conduct that they’re challenging isn’t currently ongoing, and that’s a critical question for the preliminary injunction.  That’s all the Court needs to determine at this stage.

THE COURT:  Okay.  All right.  Mr. — You can go ahead now.

MR. SAUER:  Your Honor, I think she just conceded that they are going to do it again.  I heard her say —

THE COURT:  She didn’t say no, did she?  She didn’t say no, but she might want to say that.  Go ahead.

MR. SAUER:  I think she just said that, you know what, there’s nothing unlawful about this.  This is all A-OK. And as soon as it makes sense to us, we will do it again.  And that’s a really important concession.5

This is why the issue before SCOTUS on March 18 is so incredibly important: The government has no intention of ending their coercion of social media outlets to do its bidding when it comes to censoring disfavored speech. 

There have been approximately 100 amicus briefs submitted by states, members of Congress, state legislatures, and organizations from across the U.S. in support of the plaintiffs’ position on the preliminary injunction. These entities see the dangers of government-imposed censorship. But a troubling list of organizations and entities have submitted amicus briefs to SCOTUS in its support of the government’s position on censorship.6 They include:

  • American Academy of Pediatrics. 
  • American Medical Association. 
  • American Academy of Family Physicians. 
  • American College of Physicians. 
  • American Geriatrics Society.
  • Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. 
  • Common Cause.
  • Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
  • The Coalition for Independent Technology Research.
  • Stanford University.
  • Senator Mark Warner.
  • Secretaries of state of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont.
  • 23 states including New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, and Washington, D.C.

Free speech should not be a partisan issue and yet there’s a clear delineation between states that favor the government’s actions and those that do not. There’s also a clear delineation on how these listed states treated other inalienable rights during the pandemic – almost all imposed harsher restrictions. 

The above list represents a credible threat to free speech in America.

Which brings me to the World Health Organization…

The World Health Organization also has no intention to stop trying to censor Americans.

While the states of Missouri and Louisiana have been fighting a concerted and heroic battle to end the federal government’s stated goal of continued manipulation and censorship of free speech online, the Biden administration is working to advance the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) adoption of a pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), which would clearly state the necessity of surveilling speech and countering “misinformation” online if adopted. This makes the SCOTUS ruling on the preliminary injunction all the more important, because what the Court says now about government censorship will either reinforce our Constitution’s foundation of freedom or it will let the cracks get bigger.

Article 18 of the proposed WHO agreement (March 13, 20247) looks like a chapter out of the CISA playbook and is indeed a roadmap of censorship under the guise of “communication and public awareness.”

Note the proposed new definition for “infodemic” (February 8, 2024)8:

(f) “infodemic” means too much information, false or misleading information, in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak. It causes confusion and risk-taking behaviours that can harm health. It also leads to mistrust in health authorities and undermines public health and social measures.9
The latest iteration of the IHR10 also includes provisions for “risk communication, including countering misinformation and disinformation” at the local and national level.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), a cousin of the WHO under the umbrella of the United Nations, has gone a step further by creating a campaign for identifying “conspiracy theories.”11

Conspiracy theories cause real harm to people, to their health, and also to their physical safety. They amplify and legitimize misconceptions about the pandemic, and reinforce stereotypes which can fuel violence and violent extremist ideologies.  ~UNESCO Director-General

Even with the likelihood of success of the states and plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden, the systems are in place for the “Ministry of Truth” to continue toward its goal to control speech, and thereby perception, by suppressing or eliminating disfavored speech following the adoption of the WHO’s amendments and regulations.

In his July 4th ruling Judge Doughty quoted President Harry Truman, who said:

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one place to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

Americans have experienced a government “committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition.”  We must acknowledge that the battle for free speech is not over with a win in Murthy v. Missouri, or even Missouri v. Biden, rather it is a battle that requires constant engagement against those who would usurp freedom of speech for the advancement of science and public health, regardless of whether the threat is foreign or domestic. 

Editor’s note: Stand for Health Freedom has been on the front lines with both the threat to the First Amendment during the declared pandemic as well as the announcement of a pandemic treaty in 2021. We will continue to bring you important updates and action items that will make an impact!


  1. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-411.htm ↩︎
  2.  https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2023.7.4-PI-Mem-in-MIis-v.-Biden-1.pdf ↩︎
  3.  https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/ECF-212-3-Proposed-Finding-of-Fact.pdf pg 280 ↩︎
  4. https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/ECF-212-3-Proposed-Finding-of-Fact.pdf pg 22 ↩︎
  5. https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/230526-27.pdf ↩︎
  6. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-411.html ↩︎
  7. https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb9/A_inb9_3-en.pdf ↩︎
  8. https://healthpolicy-watch.news/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/INB8_Chapter-II_7-8-16-17-18.pdf ↩︎
  9. https://healthfreedominstitute.app.box.com/s/e0fjlaul2dd35k4v61en09y74g10g5ge ↩︎
  10. https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/these-amendments-are-unacceptable ↩︎
  11. https://en.unesco.org/themes/gced/thinkbeforesharing ↩︎

Next Steps


Step 1

Watch SHF’s interview with Jill Hines about being a plaintiff in Missouri v. Biden.

Step 2

Check out our WHO Resource Page to get up to speed on the global health takeover.

Step 3

Sign our "Free Speech is Essential to Health Freedom" petition.

Jill Hines

Directory of Advocacy
A former banker turned homeschool mom, Jill Hines began researching alternatives to conventional medicine in 2010 and what she discovered changed the trajectory of her life. She corrected a worrisome health issue, and embraced a natural approach to wellness. Advocating for informed consent and parental rights became a full-time mission when she joined the board of the Georgia Coalition for Vaccine Choice and later became the co-director of Health Freedom Louisiana. Due to her advocacy efforts during the COVID crisis, Jill was one of 25 Louisianans selected by Central City News as “a hero of the constitutional crisis.” She was also presented the Impact Award for Outstanding Public Service from the government watchdog organization Citizens for a New Louisiana. Jill now represents hundreds of millions of Americans who experienced censorship due to the Biden administration's efforts to suppress disfavored speech as a plaintiff in the landmark lawsuit Missouri v. Biden. Jill holds a marketing degree from Louisiana Tech University and now passionately “sells” health freedom full-time. Serving as Stand for Health Freedom’s advocacy director provides an incredible opportunity to advance the growing movement to preserve the sacred right to refuse unwanted medical interventions for ourselves and our children without fear of retribution.
“We have lived through a terrifying societal, psychological, and medical experiment which afforded us a knowledge that our forefathers tried to impart and we can no longer ignore: Our freedom is tenuous. For our children’s sake, the time is now to take a stand for health freedom.”

Chrissy Scott

Executive Assistant and Social Media Manager

A labor and delivery nurse with a lifelong passion for maternal and fetal health, Chrissy Scott left her job of 19 years after learning the truth about the harms caused by the medical system. In 2009, she was mandated by her employer to receive the H1N1 vaccine during her first trimester of pregnancy with her second child. She was assured that the vaccine was “safe and effective” for pregnant women, but her son was born with a kidney defect that could have been fatal. She didn’t connect the dots to vaccine injury until several years later when the declining health of her oldest son drove her to seek answers outside of allopathic medicine.

This personal journey ignited in her a new passion for truth and transparency in health care. As SHF’s Executive Assistant, Chrissy facilitates communication and local advocacy initiatives alongside Leah Wilson for their home state of Indiana. She also manages and creates graphics for SHF’s social media accounts and the website’s swag shop.

Chrissy earned her nursing degree from Anderson University and served her entire career at her local hospital. While she’s no longer a floor nurse, her five very active boys frequently test her nursing skills! She homeschools her children and has been co-owner of a successful home décor sign business with her sister.

“Parents, being the experts on their own children, are best suited to make decisions for the well-being of their family. To do this properly, they must be given full and accurate information and be free from force or coercion.”

Ellen Chappelle


Ellen Chappelle serves as SHF’s resident wordsmith. A seasoned writer and editor, she’s enthusiastic about ensuring that our content is clear, concise, and inspiring.

Ellen is most energized by working on projects that transform lives. A truth seeker as well as a journalist, she’s disturbed by the lack of accuracy in today’s media and determined to help share fact rather than fiction. And having found greater healing with alternative approaches, she’s also passionate about preserving our freedom to make informed health choices.

Past projects include serving as regional editor of a dog magazine, color and trend specialist for a small cosmetics company, arts columnist, newspaper reporter, ghostwriter, and creator of website content for artists and small businesses.

With a degree in journalism and theatre, Ellen is also a performer. She enjoyed singing and dancing on a cruise ship and traveling with a national musical theatre tour, as well as recording industrial videos, television commercials, and radio voiceovers. She also creates handcrafted jewelry in wire, chain maille, and fused glass.

“Despite what some would have us believe, the fact remains that this nation was founded on biblical principles by people who wanted freedom to worship God and live their lives without government involvement. It’s never been more critical to fight for those rights.”


Executive Director and Co-founder

An attorney with a background in complex litigation and advocacy, Leah Wilson is passionate about children’s health and has researched and worked on child welfare issues for more than a decade.

The overmedication of children in foster care as a form of behavior management is what compelled Leah to become an advocate and foster parent. During her time as a court-appointed special advocate for abused and neglected children, Leah witnessed the rampant use of psychiatric drugs among foster kids. She also discovered that, in addition to many extensive requirements, the state had a policy that all foster children and foster families be fully vaccinated, without exception. Through her involvement in law, health and the foster care system, it became abundantly clear to Leah that the single most important issue affecting child welfare in the United States is the practice of one-size-fits-all medicine via medical mandates. This motivated Leah to expand her advocacy beyond foster care to all children nationwide and to start Stand for Health Freedom (SHF) in 2019.

A graduate of the Saint Louis University School of Law, Leah holds dual bachelor degrees in political science and Spanish from Indiana University. In addition to her advocacy work with SHF, Leah is the owner and former operations director of MaxLiving Indy, one of the largest natural health centers in the Midwest. She is also an educator on holistic health as well as a sought-after speaker on issues ranging from religious rights to greening your home.

“Parental rights and religious freedom are God-given natural rights that cannot arbitrarily be taken away by government authorities. Parents are the single most important factor in a child’s success; I stand in full support of this sacred relationship.”

Sayer JI

Director and Co-founder

Sayer Ji is a widely recognized researcher, author, lecturer, activist, and educator on natural health modalities. Among his many roles, he is an advisor to Stand for Health Freedom, a reviewer and editor of the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, an advisory board member of the National Health Federation, a steering committee member of the Global GMO Free Coalition, and the co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed Inc., a revolutionary scientific validation framework.

Most notably, Sayer is the founder of Greenmedinfo.com, the world’s most widely referenced, evidence-based natural health resource of its kind. He founded the platform in 2008 to provide an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. Today, Greenmedinfo.com has more than a million visits per month, serving as a trusted resource on myriad health and wellness topics to physicians, healthcare practitioners, clinicians, researchers and consumers worldwide.

Sayer attended Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, where he studied under the notable American philosopher Dr. Bruce W. Wilshire. He received a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy in 1995, with a focus on the philosophy of science. His new book, Regenerate: Unlocking Your Body’s Radical Resilience through the New Biology, was released in March 2020 and is an Amazon bestseller.

“I truly believe that education will be our greatest shield against accelerating the erosion of civil liberties, including the right to bodily sovereignty, as well as the greatest catalyst for positive change on this planet moving forward.”

Bailey Kuykendoll

Associate Director

Designer and visual marketer Bailey Kuykendoll began advocating for health and religious freedom and parental rights in 2014 after learning she was pregnant. A self-described skeptic, she’s not afraid to ask questions and do copious amounts of research to reach her own conclusions.

She’s also not afraid of hard work. As SHF’s Associate Director, Bailey truly keeps the organizational boat afloat. Working closely with our State Directors in each state, she ensures that SHF has calls-to-action for health-freedom bills and petitions on our website and across social media, spreading the word to encourage people to contact their legislators. She builds campaigns, graphics, website pages, and relationships.

Bailey earned a design degree from Harrington Institute of Design in 2008. She then served as a production assistant on several shows for HGTV, followed by working behind the scenes on the X Factor, small indie films, music videos, and documentaries. Bailey joined Health Freedom Florida after moving to the East Coast, becoming co-president of the grassroots organization in 2019. While at Health Freedom Florida, she successfully filed a state bill designed to stop discrimination based on your health status. She joined SHF in the fall of 2020.

“God placed a calling on my heart back in 2008 to be a part of something bigger for Him. Twelve years later, the opportunity came knocking to help others lean into their natural-born rights and take a stand for themselves and their families. I knew this is where I was called to be, and I have never looked back.”

Valerie Borek


Valerie Borek is a passionate advocate for health rights and family privacy. A mother of two with degrees in law and biochemistry, she is perfectly positioned to lead SHF advocates through complex health-rights policy. Her work is guided by a love for American values, uncovering truth, and a passion for empowering others. Valerie has served as SHF’s policy analyst since 2021.

Valerie’s understanding of the value of freedom to make one’s own health care choices is not just academic. Health freedom has kept her boys alive and thriving. Her choice to have home births jump-started her advocacy for health privacy. Her eldest son survived a rare and deadly cancer because her family was able to navigate medical care while holding onto values that were sometimes at odds with recommendations.

Before joining SHF, Valerie specialized in health and parenting rights at her boutique law firm, especially surrounding birth and vaccine rights. She advocated for informed consent in health care and transparent food labeling in her state. She helped found the Birth Rights Bar Association and was honored to present their argument to the Delaware Supreme Court that midwifery is not the practice of medicine, in support of a trailblazing midwife.

“Health is the foundation of how we show up in this world to love, serve, and create. Americans are blessed to live in a country that gets stronger the more we protect fundamental rights, like informed consent and privacy, so individuals and families can thrive.”

Mary Katherine LaCroix


Mary Katherine LaCroix became involved with SHF as a volunteer in 2019 when the religious exemption for childhood vaccines was at risk in her home state of New Jersey. She believes strongly that parents have the responsibility for their children’s health, education, and faith formation and that only they have the right to make medical decisions and manage their care.

She has worked in fundraising for more than 25 years at various educational, cultural, human services, and political organizations. A graduate of the University of Scranton, she holds a degree in History and English Literature.

Mary Katherine is thrilled to have this opportunity to work with and help grow SHF, believing that together we can achieve even greater impact in protecting our rights and caring for our loved ones. She enjoys spending time with her husband, two children and large extended family, as well as volunteering to support the special needs community.

“Parents are taught that they must trust the experts. That’s what we did, until we learned that the experts can be wrong and don’t always know what is best for your child. Parents should instead feel empowered by their natural, God-given ability to advocate and care for their children. SHF is here to give them the tools to do just that.”

Sheila Ealey

Political Analyst

Dr. Sheila Lewis Ealey is the founder and former director of the Creative Learning Center of Louisiana, a therapeutic day school for children who are on the autism spectrum or struggling with other nonverbal intellectual disabilities. The wife of a former U.S. Coast Guard Officer, she is also the mother of four children. Her son was diagnosed with severe autism spectrum disorder at 18 months. He is now a young man and considered moderate and emerging.

Sheila and her twins were featured in the documentary “Vaxxed.” She has traveled extensively, advocating for medical freedom. She continues to educate disenfranchised parents about their fundamental rights to religious and philosophical exemptions, their ability to live sustainably on a limited budget, and the importance of nutrition and biomedical interventions for optimum health with autism. She also writes individual homeschool curriculums for parents of children with autism or intellectual disorders. Sheila is a trustee for the Autism Trust, USA, and on the board of directors of Children’s Health Defense.

Over the past 20 years, she has educated herself to use natural healing modalities for the body and brain. Her formal education includes degrees in communication, special education curriculum, and a doctorate in Educational Leadership in Special Education. Sheila serves as an assistant content advisor and political analyst for SHF.

“It is not the Constitution’s job to protect our liberties, as it is not a philosophical document but a legal one. Its purpose is to limit the powers and authority of our federal government in hopes of preventing an intrusion upon our unalienable rights. We are obliged to maintain our government within its limits.”

Pin It on Pinterest