PDA

View Full Version : DR. RON PAUL INTRODUCES HEALTH FREEDOM BILLS--please support them!



Aquene
08-03-2009, 02:51 PM
Copied from
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=3226

s
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
The Voice of Health Freedom

Dr. Ron Paul Introduces Health Freedom Bills

Dr. Ron Paul, health freedom’s friend in Congress, introduced two important bills yesterday that, if passed, would rein in the excessive interference in advanced health products by the FDA and FTC.

You can support these bills here:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27732

Here is the Life Extension Foundation’s description of the bills:

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.

These bills go to the heart of the issue of valid health claims for nutrient products: how do companies substantiate the claims they are making. Essentially the bills apply Constitutional principles to the making of claims, which are a type of speech, and are therefore protected from excessive bureaurcratic burden.

In this context it is useful to see what then Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the Supreme Court majority in the leading health claim free speech case, Thompson v. Western States Medical Center - 01-344, decided on April 29, 2002 - 535 U.S. 357 -

“If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last - not first - resort.”

“We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information.”

“Even if the Government did argue that it had an interest in preventing misleading advertisements, this interest could be satisfied by the far less restrictive alternative of requiring each …to be labeled with a warning that the [product] had not undergone FDA testing and that its risks were unknown.”

The basic rule, announced by the case, to determine constitutionally permitted government restrictions on Commercial Speech (speech that makes or is about an offer for a transaction) is a Two Prong Test: the first prong is to ask two questions: (1) is the speech in question about unlawful activity and (2) is the speech misleading. If “no” to both, the speech is entitled to protection unless the Government can carry its burden and prove (1) the governmental interest involved is “substantial”, (2) the regulation must “directly advance” the governmental interest and (3) the regulation of Commercial Speech cannot be “more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest” (quoting Central Hudson v Public Service, 447 US 557, at 566).

Dr. Paul’ s bills make it clear that the government has the burden of proof if it seeks to restrict what marketers say about their health related products. In this way, his bills preserve the Constitutional protections for Commercial Speech.

You can support these bills here:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27732

Aquene
08-03-2009, 02:59 PM
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27732

I have copied part of the content of this link below, but to send a message to Congress, you have to go to the link.
Support Dr. Ron Paul's Health Freedom Bills: HR 3395 and HR 3394

Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
SUPPORT RON PAU'L'S HEALTH FREEDOM BILLS
SEND YOUR MESSAGE TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVES HERE

Dr. Ron Paul, health freedom's friend in Congress, introduced two important bills July 31, 2009 that, if passed, would rein in the excessive interference in advanced health products by the FDA and FTC.

Here is the Life Extension Foundation's description of the bills:

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.

These bills go to the heart of the issue of valid health claims for nutrient products: how do companies substantiate the claims they are making. Essentially the bills apply Constitutional principles to the making of claims, which are a type of speech, and are therefore protected from excessive bureaurcratic burden.

In this context it is useful to see what then Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the Supreme Court majority in the leading health claim free speech case, Thompson v. Western States Medical Center - 01-344, decided on April 29, 2002 - 535 U.S. 357 -

"If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last - not first - resort."

"We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information."

"Even if the Government did argue that it had an interest in preventing misleading advertisements, this interest could be satisfied by the far less restrictive alternative of requiring each ...to be labeled with a warning that the [product] had not undergone FDA testing and that its risks were unknown."

The basic rule, announced by the case, to determine constitutionally permitted government restrictions on Commercial Speech (speech that makes or is about an offer for a transaction) is a Two Prong Test: the first prong is to ask two questions: (1) is the speech in question about unlawful activity and (2) is the speech misleading. If "no" to both, the speech is entitled to protection unless the Government can carry its burden and prove (1) the governmental interest involved is "substantial", (2) the regulation must "directly advance" the governmental interest and (3) the regulation of Commercial Speech cannot be "more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest" (quoting Central Hudson v Public Service, 447 US 557, at 566).


Dr. Paul' s bills make it clear that the government has the burden of proof if it seeks to restrict what marketers say about their health related products. In this way, his bills preserve the Constitutional protections for Commercial Speech.

Please scroll down and use the below form to contact your Representative and Senators about these bills; you can add your own message as well.

DaBee
08-03-2009, 03:09 PM
Freedom of Speech - it's a good thing.

Southwindcome
08-03-2009, 03:34 PM
Sounds to me like the legislation should be renamed "The Snake-Oil Salesman's Enabling Law." Thankfully it will go nowhere.

TR Morin
08-03-2009, 05:36 PM
Sounds to me like the legislation should be renamed "The Snake-Oil Salesman's Enabling Law." Thankfully it will go nowhere.

I suggest no one argue the point with SWC. To do so would be something akin to shouting "PLOW" up a mules ass and expecting it to do something.

Aquene
08-03-2009, 11:03 PM
Apparently not everyone knows what Codex is about.

A brief explanation is here:http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=157
A more in depth overview here:http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=161

The latter page covers the following:

"In-Depth Codex Alimentarius Information

Codex 101 - a crash course.

About Codex Alimentarius (the “World Food Code”):

* Who is Behind Codex Alimentarius?
* Codex Alimentarius is Unscientific
* How Codex is Formulated and Imposed on Nations
* Codex Alimentarius and the Napoleonic Code
* World Health Organization Chastises Codex

Consequences:

* Mandating No HARMonization with CODEX, Food Safety and Food Regulation
* Consequences for Human and Environmental Health
* How Codex Alimentarius Promotes Dangerous GMOs
* How Codex Alimentarius Promotes Pesticides
* Codex Alimentarius Violates Liberty

Protecting Health Freedom from Codex Alimentarius:

* What is Health Freedom?
* Legal Action Via Citizen’s Petition
* Facilitating Grass-Roots Activism
* Blogging: News & Analysis

Other Documents:

* An Open Letter on Codex
* Exposing Codex Alimentarius Truth for Congress
* Additional Material "

TR Morin
08-04-2009, 05:27 AM
"Apparently not everyone knows what Codex is about." Aquene

And apparently most people don't care. Good post.

Aquene
08-05-2009, 11:56 AM
Thanks Tom. So nice to see you (and get a ride from you!) the other day. Such a nice town where neighbors are truly neighborly, despite the (still) sleepy heads.