MxM News

Quick Hit:

The Trump administration is reportedly weighing new restrictions on pharmaceutical ads—an effort long backed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Proposals include stricter disclosure rules and ending tax breaks.

Key Details:

• Two key proposals under review: requiring longer side-effect disclosures in TV ads and removing pharma’s tax deduction for ad spending.

• In 2024, drug companies spent $10.8 billion on direct-to-consumer ads, with AbbVie and Pfizer among the top spenders.

• RFK Jr. and HHS officials say the goal is to restore “rigorous oversight” over drug promotions, though no final decision has been made.

Diving Deeper:

According to a Bloomberg report, the Trump administration is advancing plans to rein in direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising—a practice legal only in the U.S. and New Zealand. Rather than banning the ads outright, which could lead to lawsuits, officials are eyeing legal and financial hurdles to limit their spread. These include mandating extended disclosures of side effects and ending tax deductions for ad spending—two measures that could severely limit ad volume, especially on TV.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has long called for tougher restrictions on drug marketing, is closely aligned with the effort. “We are exploring ways to restore more rigorous oversight and improve the quality of information presented to American consumers,” said HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon in a written statement. Kennedy himself told Sen. Josh Hawley in May that an announcement on tax policy changes could come “within the next few weeks.”

The ad market at stake is enormous. Drugmakers spent $10.8 billion last year promoting treatments directly to consumers, per data from MediaRadar. AbbVie led the pack, shelling out $2 billion—largely to market its anti-inflammatory drugs Skyrizi and Rinvoq, which alone earned the company over $5 billion in Q1 of 2025.

AbbVie’s chief commercial officer Jeff Stewart admitted during a May conference that new restrictions could force the company to “pivot,” possibly by shifting marketing toward disease awareness campaigns or digital platforms.

Pharma’s deep roots in broadcast advertising—making up 59% of its ad spend in 2024—suggest the impact could be dramatic. That shift would mark a reversal of policy changes made in 1997, when the FDA relaxed requirements for side-effect disclosures, opening the floodgates for modern TV drug commercials.

Supporters of stricter oversight argue that U.S. drug consumption is inflated because of these ads, while critics warn of economic consequences. Jim Potter of the Coalition for Healthcare Communication noted that reinstating tougher ad rules could make broadcast placements “impractical.” Harvard professor Meredith Rosenthal agreed, adding that while ads sometimes encourage patients to seek care, they can also push costly brand-name drugs over generics.

Beyond disclosure rules, the administration is considering changes to the tax code—specifically eliminating the industry’s ability to write off advertising as a business expense. This idea was floated during talks over Trump’s original tax reform but was ultimately dropped from the final bill.

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Alberta’s abortion policy allows babies to be killed with an ‘induced cardiac arrest’ before a late-term abortion and left to die without medical care if they survive.

A Canadian provincial pro-life advocacy group says health officials have admitted that many babies in the province of Alberta are indeed born alive after abortions and then left to die, and because of this are they are calling upon the province’s health minister to put an end to the practice.

Official data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), which is the federal agency in charge of reporting the nation’s health data, shows that in Alberta in 2023-2024, there were 133 late-term abortions. Of these, 28 babies were born alive after the abortion and left to die.

As noted by Prolife Alberta’s President Murray Ruhl in a recent email, this means the reality in the province is that “some of these babies are born alive… and left to die.”

“Babies born alive after failed late-term abortions are quietly abandoned—left without medical help, comfort, or even a chance to survive,” noted Ruhl.

This fact was brought to light in a recent opinion piece published in the Western Standard by Richard Dur, who serves as the executive director of Prolife Alberta.

Ruhl observed that Dur’s opinion piece has “got the attention of both Alberta Health Services (AHS) and Acute Care Alberta (ACA),” whom he said “confirmed many of the practices we exposed.”

Alberta’s policy when it comes to an abortion committed on a baby older than 21 weeks allows that all babies are killed before being born, however this does not always happen.

“In some circumstances… the patient and health practitioner may consider the option of induced fetal cardiac arrest prior to initiating the termination procedures,” notes Alberta Health Services’ Termination of Pregnancy, PS-92 (PS-92, Section 6.4).

Ruhl noted that, in Alberta, before an “abortion begins, they stop the baby’s heart. On purpose. Why? Because they don’t want a live birth. But sometimes—the child survives. And what then?”

When it comes to the same policy for babies older that 21 weeks, the policy states, “For terminations after 21 weeks and zero (0) days there must be careful consideration and documentation concerning a Do Not Resuscitate order in anticipation of a possible live birth.” (PS-92, Section 6.4).”

Ruhl observed that the reality is, “They plan in advance not to save her—even if she’s born alive.”

If the baby is born alive, the policy states, “Comfort measures and palliative care should be provided.” (PS-92, Section 6.4).

This means, however, that there is no oxygen given, no NICU, “no medical care,” noted Ruhl.

“Their policies call this ‘palliative care.’ We call it what it is: abandonment. Newborns deserve care—not a death sentence,” he noted.

As reported by LifeSiteNews recently, a total of 150 babies were born after botched abortions in 2023-2024 in Canada. However, it’s not known how many survived.

Only two federal parties in Canada, the People’s Party of Canada, and the Christian Heritage Party, have openly called for a ban on late abortions in the nation.

Policy now under ‘revision’ says Alberta Health Services

Ruhl said that the province’s policies are now “under revision,” according to AHS.

Because of this, Ruhl noted that now is the time to act and let the province’s Health Minister, Adriana LaGrange, who happens to be pro-life, act and “demand” from her real “action to protect babies born alive after failed abortions.”

The group is asking the province to do as follows below:

1. Amend the AHS Termination of Pregnancy policy to require resuscitative care for any baby born with signs of life, regardless of how the birth occurred.
2. Require that these newborns receive the same level of care as any other premature baby. Newborns deserve care—not a death sentence.
3. Recognize that these babies have a future—there is a literal waiting list of hundreds of families ready to adopt them. There is a home for every one of them.

While many in the cabinet and caucus of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s United Conservative government are pro-life, she has still been relatively soft on social issues of importance to conservatives, such as abortion.