'Do You Continue To Stand By That?': Josh Hawley Questions RFK Jr. About Mifepristone Study

Forbes Breaking News

At Wednesday's Senate Health Committee hearing, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) questioned HHS Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Transcript

00:00Secretary Kennedy, different subject, on a different subject.

00:03You and I have talked before, when you've been before this committee,

00:06and you and I have talked in person a number of times about mifeprestone.

00:08I just want to follow up with you because since the last time you were before the committee,

00:12the last time you and I spoke, there's been a major study by the Ethics and Public Policy Center

00:17of 865,727 prescribed cases of mifeprestone abortions, chemical abortions, between 2017 and 2023.

00:27Have you seen this study? Are you familiar with this?

00:29You will remember then that this data shows the biggest study on mifeprestone done, I think, ever.

00:37And it showed that nearly 11% of women experience very serious adverse health effects

00:42to include sepsis, hemorrhaging, infection, of course, emergency room visits.

00:49Now, by the way, that's 22 times higher.

00:51That rate is 22 times higher than the FDA's current label,

00:55which says it's just 0.5, the incidence of serious adverse health events.

01:00So my question to you is this.

01:01You previously testified to the committee that you would do a top-to-bottom review of mifeprestone.

01:06Mifeprestone is subject to a REMS currently.

01:08You have said you'll do a top-to-bottom review.

01:11Do you continue to stand by that?

01:13And don't you think that this new data shows that the need to do a review is, in fact, very pressing?

01:17I think the new data, first of all, it validates the CAS study,

01:23which is previously probably the most comprehensive data that we've seen on it.

01:30And it is alarming.

01:33And clearly, it indicates that, at very least, the label should be changed.

01:39I've asked Marty McCary, who's the director of FDA, to do a complete review and to report back.

01:46Good. Do you have any sense of timeline?

01:48I do not.

01:50It will be a top priority, though, for you.

01:51Is that safe to say?

01:54You say that it probably indicates the label needs to be changed.

01:57Do you think it's also important, as part of your review,

01:59to consider whether it's necessary now to put back in place the longstanding safety protocols

02:04that always accompany mifeprestone until the last administration?

02:07In-person dispensing, doctor visits, screening for ectopic pregnancies?

02:12I know that Marty McCary will make a recommendation.

02:16I feel that the policy changes will ultimately go through the White House, through President Trump.

02:24But you'll make a recommendation based on the data?

02:27Yes.

02:28Good.

02:29On a different subject, talking about the advertising that is routinely done by pharmaceutical companies,

02:37you have been a long-time critic of direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising.

02:42You wrote, I think, in the Wall Street Journal a little over a year ago

02:45about the need to revisit guidelines around pharmaceutical advertising.

02:49Is that still your view?

02:50I mean, that's your view, Chad?

02:51Yes.

02:53Pharmaceutical advertising is particularly insidious

02:57because commercial advertising has some level of First Amendment protection,

03:03not as great as political speech.

03:07It doesn't have the kind of strict scrutiny applied to political speech.

03:11It still has a level of protection.

03:13But pharmaceutical advertising is unique

03:15because if a company is advertising, for example, Coca-Cola,

03:20the consumer has a choice whether to buy it,

03:23and then he's spending his own money on it,

03:25so he's got skin in the game.

03:27With pharmaceutical advertising, the consumer is purchasing the product,

03:31and it's usually the most expensive form of the product,

03:33so they're usually advertising because they want to bury the existence

03:38and the availability of generic drugs that are much cheaper and equally effective.

03:43And the consumer is spending not his own money,

03:46but most often our money, taxpayer money.

03:50Furthermore, the pharmaceutical ad is getting tax deductions,

03:54and so we are funding it.

03:57I want to ask you just about that.

03:58Under current law, pharma companies can deduct their advertising costs

04:02as a business expense.

04:04Do you think it's time to change that?

04:05Yeah, and I actually have a call in to Scott Besant about that,

04:09but I'm working very hard on this issue,

04:12and we expect to come out with a policy within the next few weeks.

04:16Well, let me propose that we work together.

04:17Today, I'm introducing legislation to repeal the tax deductibility

04:21of these advertisements.

04:23It is a bipartisan bill with Senator Shaheen on the other side of the aisle here.

04:27It is a bicameral bill with both the Democrat and Republican sponsors

04:32in the House of Representatives,

04:33and my view is it's time to get rid of these tax breaks for these companies

04:36and to end this practice.

04:37Can you support that?

04:38A hundred percent support it.

04:39Fantastic.

04:40I look forward to working with you on that.

04:42All right.

04:42Let the record reflect I'm giving up.

04:44Senator Hickely is 15 seconds.

04:46I assume Senator Sanders will also support that.

04:50Absolutely, and I'll go further.

04:52The idea.

04:54This is coming out of your time now, John.

04:55The answer is yes.

04:57All right, Senator Hickenlooper.

Category

Transcript

Recommended