Three bills that need support

[phooph]

Lynn Woolsey contact info
Marin Office:
1050 Northgate Drive
Suite 354
San Rafael, CA. 94903
Ph.: 415-507-9554
Fax: 415-507-9601

Sonoma Office:
1101 College Avenue
Suite 200
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Ph.: 707-542-7182
Fax: 707-542-2745

E-mail: Contact Email Form

CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL INTRODUCES 3 BILLS TO RESTORE CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT; END FDA CENSORSHIP OF HEALTH CLAIMS; AND END FTC CENSORSHIP OF HEALTH INFORMATION

HR 3396: The Congressional Responsibility and Accountability Act. This bill prohibits regulations promulgated from regulatory agencies from going into effect unless passed into law by Congress in the way in which the Constitution designates. Under Article I of the Constitution, the Congress of the United States, our elected representatives, are the ones given the exclusive power to make laws. In violation of the non-delegation doctrine, about 90% of all law created by the federal government is the product of unelected heads of bureaucratic agencies, not our elected representatives. From 1934 to the present, the Congress of the United States has delegated executive, legislative, and judicial governing power to these agencies. The founding fathers warned that this combination would give birth to tyranny, self-dealing, and corruption and would be the death of liberty. Because the unelected bureaucracy makes the laws, the nation has been transformed from a republic into a bureaucratic oligarchy. Congressman Ron Paul’s Congressional Responsibility and Accountability Act restores constitutional government by returning to Congress the responsibility to make laws, thereby making them once again accountable for the laws to those who elect them.

HR 3395: The Health Freedom Act. This bill removes FDA’s power of prior restraint over all nutrient-disease relationship claims. Under the bill, the FDA may not prohibit any statement concerning a nutrient affecting a disease (including treatment effects) from being made in the market and may only act against a statement once made if it possesses clear and convincing evidence that the statement is false. Presently the FDA blocks an enormous quantity of truthful information concerning the effects of nutrients and foods on disease from reaching consumers. That barrier is removed by the Health Freedom Act, but the Act preserves the power of the government to prosecute those who communicate falsehood. The essential purpose of the First Amendment is to disarm the federal government of the power to impose a prior restraint on speech. The FDA has imposed a prior restraint for decades to the health detriment of the public. Passage of the Health Freedom Act will restore constitutional governance by reasserting the supremacy of the First Amendment over the Food and Drug Administration.

HR 3394: The Health Information Protection Act. This bill prevents the Federal Trade Commission from taking action against any advertiser that communicates a health benefit for a product unless the FTC first establishes based on clear and convincing evidence that the statement made is false and that its communication causes harm to the public. Presently, the FTC reverses the Fifth Amendment burden of proof on the government when it charges advertisers with deceptive advertising and then demands that they prove their speech true based on contemporaneously held documentation or be deemed to have advertised deceptively. The Fifth Amendment requires that FTC bear the burden of proving advertising deceptive. It may not constitutionally shift the burden to the advertiser to prove its statements not deceptive. The First Amendment requires that FTC not act against speech unless the speech is probably false. It may not constitutionally accuse a party of false advertising yet lack proof that the advertising is false and condemn advertising based on an absence of documentation concerning the truth of the statement rather than the presence of evidence establishing the falsity of the statement.

Dr. Paul’s introduction of these three momentous bills offers hope to those who presently perceive themselves as disenfranchised and seek a return to constitutional government.

* * * *

[theindependenteye]

I don't agree at all. These bills basically reduce the FDA and FTC to advisory agencies and rely on Congress to adjudicate each possible endangerment to public welfare. That might have worked in 1789, but not today. I'd much prefer to see more bureaucratic interference with the blind profit motive, not less.

Respectfully—
Conrad

[DynamicBalance]

I don't agree at all. These bills basically reduce the FDA and FTC to advisory agencies and rely on Congress to adjudicate each possible endangerment to public welfare. That might have worked in 1789, but not today. I'd much prefer to see more bureaucratic interference with the blind profit motive, not less.

Respectfully—
Conrad

Personally, I would much rather have Congress passing laws that affect my safety and well-being than the FDA and the FTC. At least the Congress is elected by the people, and they have to answer to the people who elected them. The FDA, on the other hand, has no loyalty to the people. I'm a little confused as to why you would prefer a group of appointed people to make decisions about your health.

Drug companies stand to make much more profit with the FDA making the decisions, so I'm uncertain why you said you would prefer more bureaucratic interference. For example, the third bill in question would require the FTC to establish proof that a statement made by an advertiser is false before taking action against that advertiser. In other words, the advertiser is innocent until proven guilty, which is the same common decency the United States is expected to extend to anyone accused of a crime. Otherwise, the FTC would be free to accuse anyone they don't like, regardless of proof. This bill is simply trying to restore oversight to the FDA.

Likewise, the second bill prohibits the FDA from blocking statements made unless they can provide proof that the statements are false. This really seems like common sense to me. For instance, I could accuse someone of slander, but unless I can provide proof that the statements made about me were untrue and damaging to my reputation, no action will be taken against that person. This bill is simply seeking to restore the same checks and balances to the FDA, to prevent them from abusing their power. Currently the FDA is free to block all kinds of health information (particularly info about nutrients and disease), and the people who profit the most from this blocked information are the pharmaceutical companies. Meanwhile, the FDA has a reputation for approving unsafe drugs. It doesn't take a genius to guess where their loyalty lies.

Without these bills, the FDA can accuse a company of making false health claims. Then the burden of proof is on that company to prove that their claims are true. If the company is a massive pharmaceutical company with millions of dollars at their disposal, its no big deal to pay for a number of studies to be done that "prove" that the claim is true. However, if the company is instead a small vitamin or herb business, they would not have the same resources and would be unable to prove the claim. That company would have no choice but to stop making the health claim, which could hurt their business. There also might be massive fines imposed for the "false" statement. This is regardless of whether or not the statement was actually false. When you add to this situation the fact that pharmaceutical companies have the money to bribe the FDA officials to get them to look the other way, you can see that this system is designed to remove the competition for the drug companies (through harassment, fines, and threats of legal action). Meanwhile, the FDA is free to approve any drug it wants without any oversight by Congress to prevent abuse of the system.

I have a serious problem with anyone trying to block free speech or the free sharing of information, and those who would do so should have the burden of proof placed on them. I also despise false health claims, and under these bills the FDA and FTC would still have the freedom to take action against those who make them.

[theindependenteye]

>>Personally, I would much rather have Congress passing laws that affect my safety and well-being than the FDA and the FTC. ... I'm a little confused as to why you would prefer a group of appointed people to make decisions about your health.

Because this bill seems to expect Congress to micromanage regulation. Congress already has the power (a) to pass specific legislation that is regulatory and (b) require agencies to report their actions through testimony, which then allows Congress to pass further legislation if desired. It seems to me this legislation, if applied to war-making, for example, would require that Congress pass a law -- with all the vast tangled process that involves -- for every battlefield maneuver down to the battalion level. That'd end war real fast (which I'd be in favor of), as it would any effective semblance of federal regulation -- which I assume is Rep. Paul's desire, but not mine.

>>...The third bill in question would require the FTC to establish proof that a statement made by an advertiser is false before taking action against that advertiser. In other words, the advertiser is innocent until proven guilty, ...
>>Likewise, the second bill prohibits the FDA from blocking statements made unless they can provide proof that the statements are false.

So this would have the FTC and FDA responsible for massive research projects to make independent reviews of every product that came on the shelves, and it could stay there, perhaps for years, until a case could be assembled against it, and then it'd work its way through the courts. Maybe I'm misreading, but again it seems the intention is to make regulation so difficult and expensive that it'll never happen. Certainly, requiring extensive testing of pharmaceuticals, for example, is a cost we wind up paying. But then at least it happens. And i'd trust career bureaucrats, for all their failings, to do a better job of protecting my health than either a bought-and-paid-for Congress or private industry.

>>... Meanwhile, the FDA has a reputation for approving unsafe drugs. It doesn't take a genius to guess where their loyalty lies.

I agree. I think serious reform needs to happen, but I see these bills as having a different agenda.

>>...If the company is a massive pharmaceutical company with millions of dollars at their disposal, its no big deal to pay for a number of studies to be done that "prove" that the claim is true. However, if the company is instead a small vitamin or herb business, they would not have the same resources and would be unable to prove the claim. That company would have no choice but to stop making the health claim, which could hurt their business.

Same answer as above.

>>Meanwhile, the FDA is free to approve any drug it wants without any oversight by Congress to prevent abuse of the system.

Congress always has oversight if they choose to take it. But in my view, Congress is much more beholden to these regulated industries than are the regulatory agencies, and unless an individual Congressman has made it a particular arena his speciality, he's much more beholden to lobbyists for his information. A great many of these despised "bureaucrats" are experts in their fields and with a long record of service precisely because they're unelected. Yes, agency fuckups are legion, of course. But I'd rather have them fucking up at times than become rubber stamps for these industries.

I think you and I see the same problems and would like the same basic outcomes; but I just can't buy the Libertarian objectives inherent in this legislation.

Wish I could pursue this thread more, but I have to bow out now, being under insane production pressure.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

[d-cat]

will contact Woolsey's office phooph (gotta anyway about vaccines). Thanks for posting