Fw: Emailing: hillary-clinton-big-pharma-connection-media-wont-attack.htm

[Guest guest]



Home | Blogs | Forum | Chats | About | Contact | Search | Videos

A Hillary Clinton-Big Pharma Connection the Media Won't Attack?

By Ken Shepherd | November 2, 2007 - 10:16 ET

Author and political reporter Carney has an interesting item this morning in the Washington Examiner about how Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) practically gets campaign contribution kickbacks from her support for subsidies to the drug industry for the so-called emergency contraceptive pill Plan B. Emphasis mine. (h/t Joyner):

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., portrays herself as a scourge of the pharmaceutical industry, but she has shown that she’s willing to help a drugmaker if that’s what it takes to profit Planned Parenthood, her indispensable political ally.

Clinton’s campaign Web site touts that she has “battled the big drug companies.†Yet she has sponsored many bills that would directly subsidize Barr Laboratories, maker of the emergency contraceptive pill Plan B, which also functions as an abortifacient. Thanks to a deal cut between Barr and Planned Parenthood, those taxpayer subsidies will yield generous profits for the pro-choice group that every four years spends millions trying to elect a Democrat to the White House.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

On Sept. 27, Clinton and eight other Democratic senators introduced the “Emergency Contraception Education Act of 2007.†While Clinton’s broad health care plan would “limit direct-to-consumer advertising†of prescription drugs, this particular bill would subsidize such advertising for emergency contraceptives in the name of a public awareness campaign for “postcoital contraception.†In effect, this bill would give Planned Parenthood tax money to conduct an ad campaign for the morning-after pill.

[...]

Last year, just as von Eschenbach’s name was being floated for FDA director, Barr CEO Bruce Downey cut a $1,000 check to Clinton’s campaign. A couple of weeks later, Hillary announced her hold on Eschenbach’s nomination and introduced her Plan B subsidy bill.

This year, the day after Clinton introduced her Plan B awareness bill, Barr Executive Vice President Frederick J. Killion donated $1,000 to her campaign.

[...]

None of Senator Clinton’s Plan B subsidies have been passed into law this year, but if she can pull it off, it’s a nice deal: Taxpayers subsidize advertising for Planned Parenthood, which then spends money to elect Clinton to the White House. Surely that makes up for helping one of those “big drug companies†make a bundle.

Of course, while the media usually love to big up on drug makers, exceptions are often made for drugs favored by socially liberal activists such as Plan B and the Gardisil HPV vaccine, as Amy Menefee and I wrote about in our March 2007 study "Prescription for Bias" (emphasis mine):

While media coverage of drugs was generally favorable, one area received extremely positive coverage - drugs that also received extensive left-wing support. Nineteen stories in the study dealt with medicines or vaccines that were politically controversial for social reasons, such as Plan B (the "morning-after" pill) and Gardasil, a vaccine for HPV, a sexually transmitted virus that often leads to cervical cancer.

For those drugs in particular, the networks set aside the usual scrutiny of drug companies' profit motives and wholeheartedly supported wide distribution of the medicines.

Journalists even allowed industry representatives to push the products in some stories. On the May 18 "Nightly News," Dr. Haupt of Merck's vaccine division told NBC's s that his company had reached out to social conservatives "about HPV and what the vaccine was all about." On the July 31 "World News" on ABC, Bruce Downey of Barr Pharmaceuticals said he was "optimistic" about the decision to make Plan B available for over-the-counter sales, adding that the wisdom of the decision "will be in the final outcome."

[...]

....On the July 31 "Nightly News," Downey of Barr Pharmaceuticals was deployed by reporter Tom Costello as a foil to social conservatives such as of Concerned Women for America in addressing concerns about Plan B, or the "morning-after pill."

"The faster" that Plan B is taken, "the better," insisted Downey, who worried that waiting for a prescription was too long for women who feared themselves to be at risk for becoming pregnant. Neither the Gardasil nor the Plan B stories mentioned potential side effects.

In a May 8, 2006, story, anchor talked about Plan B use rising rapidly, noting "about 1.3 million prescriptions are written for it each year. And over the last three years, usage has gone up 200 percent." Again, unlike media treatment of other drugs, the story didn't say how much profit the drug company had made from that skyrocketing usage, or how much more it stood to make if the drug was available to the masses over the counter.

—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters

Ken Shepherd's blog Login or register to post comments Printer friendly version

Topics:

Birth Control Business Coverage Corporate Liberalism Economy Liberals & Democrats Media Bias Debate Hillary Clinton Carney District of Columbia Government & Press

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Flat list - collapsedFlat list - expandedThreaded list - collapsedThreaded list - expanded

Date - newest firstDate - oldest first

10 comments per page30 comments per page50 comments per page70 comments per page90 comments per page150 comments per page200 comments per page250 comments per page300 comments per page

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Well, Mr. Shepherd, it's aNovember 2, 2007 - 10:56 ET by motherbelt

Well, Mr. Shepherd, it's a delicate balancing act, you know, and one has to consider the "greater good."

In other words, it's OK to suck up to the pharmaceutical industry for the "greater good" of promoting abortion, the main sacrament of the Church of Liberalism.

Not to mention the other big benefit:

Taxpayers subsidize advertising for Planned Parenthood, which then spends money to elect Clinton to the White House.

This may sound dumb, but is that legal?????

Login or register to post comments

So hillarys in the pocketNovember 2, 2007 - 11:10 ET by MidAmerica

So hillarys in the pocket of 'Big Abortion'.

Login or register to post comments

The Politics of Pile-OnNovember 2, 2007 - 11:51 ET by third eye

While Clinton’s broad health care plan would “limit direct-to-consumeradvertising†of prescription drugs, this particular bill wouldsubsidize such advertising for emergency contraceptives in the name ofa public awareness campaign for “postcoital contraception.â€

Hillary is well aware of this potential political pot hole and has come up with a way to nip it in the bud...a new campaign slogan. Her new mantra "the Politics of Pile-On" is in reference to the democratic peasants attacking her majesty. Well the the thought of any "piling-on" of Hillary is expected to cut sexual activity in America by at least half, making "postcoital contraception" a moot point.

Login or register to post comments

Right Back at youNovember 2, 2007 - 11:52 ET by PTW

Republican Candidates For The President of The United States Endorse Torture....Media Won't Attack!

What would you rather complain about in the media...money in politics, or the USA as a police state like so many others in our recent history. Why don't we just start hacking off heads so we become are own worst enemy.

Login or register to post comments

Well, I guess in this thread...November 2, 2007 - 14:57 ET by Karma

....it's money in politics. The hacking off heads stuff was yesterday in the capital punishment blog.

Login or register to post comments

What are you talking about??November 2, 2007 - 14:58 ET by Khyris

What Republican candidate has said "I endorse torture?"

I'm sorry but just because you have a screwed up sense of what constitutes "cruel and unusual" doesn't mean you can justify this ludicrous inference. And infer is all you can do. We use to hang people all the time... then one day we decided that was "cruel and unusual." Then we used the electric chair, and then one day we decided that was "cruel and unusual." Keep moving the goal posts, and words like "torture" lose all meaning. Ever stepped on a bug? Was that "cruel?" I'd bet it made the bug uncomfortable... does that mean you're guilty of torture? Does spanking your kid constitute child abuse?

We have legal definitions of what is and isn't torture. We don't broadcast those lists because it makes no sense to tell Terrorists "Don't worry, if we imprison you, the worst we can do is make you drink flat soda and listen to Kenny G." That does NOT mean we don't HAVE a legal standard, NOR does it mean we don't ABIDE by that legal standard.

Since you obviously have no idea what that standard is, and neither do the Republican candidates, how can you claim that candidates support/deny/overstep these guidelines? Your accusation is completely baseless.

Login or register to post comments

Ep. 16, Nov. 2

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.19/1105 - Release Date: 11/2/2007 11:04 AM