HHS Secretary Alex Azar says the Trump administration's plan to reduce prescription-drug prices is "market-based." But is it?

Iowa set a groundbreaking precedent on Friday as the “fetal heartbeat” bill was signed into law. Surrounded by cheers and a crowd of supporters that included mothers and children, Governor Kim Reynolds proudly attached her name to the historic and controversial Senate File 359. Described by many in the mainstream media as “the nation’s most restrictive abortion ban,” this new law requires an ultrasound for a woman seeking an abortion and then prohibits the abortion if the baby’s heartbeat is detected, which can be as early as six weeks. This bill was passed on the same day that a similar bill in South Carolina, banning nearly all abortions, was sent back to committee after a Democratic filibuster.

Expecting premiums on the ObamaCare insurance exchanges to rise sharply in the wake of the repeal of the individual mandate, states are scrambling to find ways to blunt this “sticker shock."

Abortion proponents are up in arms over the Trump administration's reinstatement of conscience protections for pro-life healthcare workers.

Under the guise of keeping Americans safe by restricting their choices, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is plotting a massive power-grab that could crush the popular natural-health industry under an avalanche of regulatory red tape and policy uncertainty. Consumers could also lose access to an array of natural remedies. The controversial federal plot, which critics say has no basis in law or the Constitution, comes as Americans become increasingly disillusioned with “Big Pharma” and establishment medicine generally. The FDA schemes would protect the profits of well-connected pharmaceutical companies while further aligning U.S. policy with the United Nations “Codex Alimentarius” regime. Criticism of the FDA's proposed scheme is growing louder, though. The public has a week left to comment on the looming regulations.

Affiliates and Friends

Social Media