Back when Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was running for president, he expressed interest in banning pharmaceutical ads on TV. This week, a popular account on X posted so-called breaking news saying Kennedy “has announced plans to ban pharmaceutical advertisements on television.”
The White House eventually denied the claims, and the social media account didn’t give a source. Still, the usual suspects initially offered praise. On X, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) reacted with, “Great idea,” while podcaster Tim Pool asked, “What about podcasts?”
Conservatives should oppose the idea of censoring pharmaceutical advertising on television. It is fundamentally a First Amendment issue. In 2012, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in United States v. Caronia that “the prohibition and criminalization of truthful off-label promotional speech by pharmaceutical companies and their representatives violates the First Amendment.”
The Food and Drug Administration neither controls, nor reviews, nor approves pharmaceutical advertisements. However, as the agency notes on its website, “If we believe that an ad violates the law, we send a letter to the drug company asking that the ads be stopped right away.”
For someone like Kennedy, the main reason for opposing pharmaceutical advertisements is based on anti-vaccine sentiments and distrust of the entire traditional medical establishment. The HHS secretary has a long history of quackery, fearmongering, and an embrace of conspiracy theories. He is not proposing a ban on televised pharmaceutical ads at present, but there is no guarantee he won’t in the future. We have his own words as proof.
The COVID-19 pandemic did much to harm people’s trust in doctors, vaccines, and the healthcare profession as a whole. Their frustrations and concerns are valid. But legitimate problems with pandemic-era mandates, restrictions, and even medical care shouldn’t feed a delusion that rejects science-backed medical care for a wide variety of illnesses and diseases. We are privileged to live in a time when treatment and medications are in abundance. Pharmaceutical ads encourage viewers to have conversations about problems and “ask your doctor.”
And our experience with these advertisements is nearly exclusive to these shores. A 2023 Vox article titled “The bizarre Americanness of prescription drug commercials” hits the nail on the head. New Zealand is the only other place in the developed world where direct-to-consumer pharma marketing takes place. Pharmaceutical ads are indeed “very American.” This doesn’t make them wrong or illegal. Like other things the First Amendment protects, you’re not required to like them. In fact, speaking up for the protection of that which we dislike is much more an application of the First Amendment than promoting the things we love. The latter is both easy and expected.
MEASLES VACCINATION RATES UP NEAR OUTBREAK EPICENTERS
There is nothing conservative about big government and censorship. This is what we anticipate from the Democratic Party. It should not be accepted from the Republican Party, even from a Trump appointee. Here, Kennedy espouses neither conservatism nor common sense. That he was chosen by President Donald Trump doesn’t mean his words and actions should be quickly accepted or easily dismissed.
Given Kennedy’s personal convictions, his own statements, and a MAGA base eager to punish the healthcare community, a pharmaceutical ad ban may happen. Such a proposal would be met with applause by far too many on the Right. But this censorship should be soundly rejected by all those who favor First Amendment protections, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum.
Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog and a contributing freelance columnist at the Freemen News-Letter.