Trump boxes in anti-abortion groups

Presented by PhRMA: Delivered daily by 10 a.m., Pulse examines the latest news in health care politics and policy.

Sep 21, 2023 View in browser   By Chelsea Cirruzzo and Ben Leonard Presented by Driving the day Trump is attempting to have it both ways on abortion — calling himself “the most pro-life president ever” while shunning the priorities of the anti-abortion groups that helped elect him in 2016. | Charlie Neibergall/AP Photo GOING ROGUE — Donald Trump’s effort to recast himself as a moderate on abortion has boxed in the deep-pocketed anti-abortion groups accustomed to having candidates fall in line with their demands. They don’t want to alienate the presumptive Republican nominee but are loath to let his remarks go unchallenged, POLITICO's Alice Miranda Ollstein and Sally Goldenberg report. In just the last week, the former president called Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ six-week abortion ban “terrible,” refused to endorse national restrictions, blamed abortion opponents for 2022 midterm losses, and pledged to compromise with Democrats if elected. The remarks have animated his rivals, who hope to show he is a fair-weather conservative and set up a crucial test for the anti-abortion movement, said Patrick Brown, a fellow with the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Life and Family Initiative. “Are pro-lifers going to allow themselves to be a cheap date?” he asked. “Are they going to sit back and take it when candidates are denigrating the cause they dedicated their life for?” Why it matters: Trump’s attempt to have it both ways on abortion — calling himself “the most pro-life president ever” and taking credit for the fall of Roe v. Wade while shunning the priorities of the anti-abortion groups that helped elect him in 2016 — has exposed those groups’ struggle for relevance in a lopsided primary and highlighted ongoing divisions in the movement. What they’re saying: Some groups say they will give the GOP frontrunner more time to clarify his position and expect he will eventually support a national abortion ban. Other groups, anxious about Trump watering down his abortion stance, are mulling various tactics, including making a primary endorsement, protesting outside his upcoming events, and redirecting their campaign budget to down-ballot races. “He won’t feel pressure until it’s applied and we’re willing to apply it,” said Kristi Hamrick, the chief policy strategist with Students for Life of America. “You cannot ignore the human rights issue of our time and still get our vote.” Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America said it plans to spend more than the $78 million it shelled out on the 2022 election cycle to turn out anti-abortion-rights voters in 2024. But a leader in the organization acknowledged Trump's posture makes their work harder. “Looking at a general, he’s going to need all Republicans to come home if he’s going to beat Joe Biden,” Billy Valentine, SBA’s vice president of political affairs, said. “He’s going to need the base in order to win ultimately, and he’s going to need a clear position. In the absence of a clear position, the Democrats are going to define him.” WELCOME TO THURSDAY PULSE. The track titles for Taylor Swift’s re-recorded album “1989” have been revealed. All I want is “Blank Space” (Taylor’s Version). Swifties, send me and Ben your tips, scoops and feedback to bleonard@politico.com and ccirruzzo@politico.com and follow along @_BenLeonard_ and @ChelseaCirruzzo. TODAY ON OUR PULSE CHECK PODCAST , host Katherine Ellen Foley talks with health care reporter Alice Miranda Ollstein discuss key takeaways from POLITICO’s “Transforming Health Care: Site-Neutral Payments & Billing Transparency” live event. Listen to today’s Pulse Check podcast   A message from PhRMA: Here’s another way insurance companies and their pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) put their profits before your health.   Vaccines ‘DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS FOR YEARS TO COME’ — Presidential hopefuls on both sides of the aisle have been touting anti-vaccine views, promising “medical freedom” and pitching plans to investigate or gut federal health agencies — and public health experts are worried. They fear what some may dismiss as campaign trail bluster will have real-world consequences that could outlast the 2024 presidential election — leading to even lower vaccination rates, the spread of diseases that haven’t circulated widely for generations and an inability to address future pandemics, POLITICO’s Megan Messerly reports in the second story of a five-part series diving into the rise of the anti-vaccine political movement. Being anti-vaccine and skeptical of modern medicine were once fringe views. Covid brought them into the mainstream, and public health experts fear campaign rhetoric could cement their place in today’s political milieu. “Many of us in public health are deeply concerned that distrust in government and health entities, and a political campaign in which candidates are openly and vigorously arguing that people should ignore the advice of health experts, could have detrimental impacts for years to come — no matter who wins,” said Dr. Jerome Adams, U.S. surgeon general during the Trump administration. Data show that most Americans still trust science, listen to their doctors and vaccinate their children — but the numbers are trending in the wrong direction. Public health officials are grappling with what to do — understanding that although they are the ones best equipped to address health-related misinformation, they are also the ones skeptics are least likely to trust. Some believe it could take something like the death of a prominent person from a vaccine-preventable disease to shock the public into widespread acceptance of immunizations again.   HAPPENING 9/28 — INSIDE THE CANCER MOONSHOT: Join POLITICO on Thursday, Sept. 28 for an in-depth discussion on the future of cancer treatment and innovation. Hear from experts including scientists, government officials and industry leaders as we explore the critical roles played by private industry, nonprofits, the National Cancer Institute and the new Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health in achieving the Biden administration's goal of cutting the cancer death rate in half over the next 25 years. Don't miss this opportunity to dive into the progress of cancer treatments and learn about the challenges patients encounter in accessing care. REGISTER HERE.     PANDEMIC Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra arrives to receive an updated Covid-19 booster and a flu shot at a local CVS Pharmacy on Sept. 20, 2023 in Washington. | Drew Angerer/Getty Images MAIL-ORDER COVID TESTS COMING — The federal government will again offer free Covid-19 tests through the mail starting Sept. 25, amid an uptick in the number of Covid hospitalizations, Chelsea reports. Like in previous iterations, each household will be able to order four free testing kits for home delivery. The Biden administration said the tests are designed to detect circulating variants and can be used through the end of the year. Orders will contain clear instructions on when the tests expire. The administration also announced $600 million to go toward 12 domestic Covid-19 test manufacturers to create an additional 200 million tests for federal government distribution. “The president wanted to make sure that no one can go without tests. We will once again up our program to make sure Americans have access to a test,” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra told reporters at a Washington, D.C., pharmacy. Becerra was there to receive his Covid and flu shots and to promote the updated Covid shots, which were endorsed by the CDC last week. The federal government reopened its partnership with the U.S. Postal Service in December, allowing people to request four free at-home Covid-19 tests per household. The program was paused in June to preserve the government’s remaining supply of Covid tests and because the number of Covid hospitalizations had plateaued. Congress Sen. Bernie Sanders walks to a meeting at the Capitol Sept. 5, 2023. | Francis Chung/POLITICO HEALTH CENTER PLAN PROMPTS WORRY — Public health groups and some lawmakers are concerned that a bipartisan deal to boost community health center funding and grow the health care workforce would take desperately needed money from mandatory public health funding, POLITICO’s David Lim and Daniel Payne report. The deal between Senate HELP Committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) is partially funded through $980 million from the Prevention and Public Health Fund — mandatory funds established by the Affordable Care Act to bolster the U.S. public health system. The skeptics: Critics, including public health, research, academic and social service organizations, argue the decision to tap that pot of money to pay for other health priorities will harm core public health programs, demonstrates a lack of learning from the Covid-19 pandemic and could hamper the funding of public health efforts in the future. Senate HELP Committee ranking member Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said that tapping the PPHF is “troublesome” because the work done by community health centers is different from the fund’s core public health efforts. Democrats are also concerned. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) said she has strong concerns about taking PPHF money to offset the community health center package, but will support the bill when the Senate HELP Committee marks it up on Thursday. The supporters: Proponents of the bill say it could help address primary care shortages across the country and increase funding for other health programs in exchange for the cuts — as well as other provisions to combat “enormous waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system.” And despite the concerns over the proposed PPHF cuts, Sanders said he is confident there is enough support to advance his deal with Marshall.   A message from PhRMA:   Global Health INTERNATIONAL OK ON PANDEMIC PREPAREDNESS — World leaders gave preliminary approval at a U.N. meeting Wednesday to a political declaration on pandemic preparedness, prevention and response, which calls for increased international cooperation, POLITICO’s Evan Peng reports. But opposition from Russia and its allies threatens adoption by the General Assembly. The bloc wants language in the declaration opposing sanctions not endorsed by the U.N., such as those NATO allies imposed on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine. Russia can block sanctions resolutions in the U.N. Security Council, where it holds a veto. Why it matters: Nations are negotiating via the World Health Organization a treaty aimed at setting international rules for future pandemics with a target date of May 2024. The United States has opposed language that would require more sharing of intellectual property related to vaccines and viral treatments. A U.N.-endorsed pandemic declaration could give the treaty negotiations a boost, and the declaration calls on nations to reach an accord. The U.N. declaration urges nations to ensure access to medicine and vaccines, to strengthen disease surveillance and the health care workforce, to combat misinformation and to bolster the work of the WHO. What’s next? The General Assembly will vote on the treaty in October, giving Russia and its allies an opportunity to block it.   GO INSIDE THE CAPITOL DOME: From the outset, POLITICO has been your eyes and ears on Capitol Hill, providing the most thorough Congress coverage — from political characters and emerging leaders to leadership squabbles and policy nuggets during committee markups and hearings. We're stepping up our game to ensure you’re fully informed on every key detail inside the Capitol Dome, all day, every day. Start your day with Playbook AM, refuel at midday with our Playbook PM halftime report and enrich your evening discussions with Huddle. Plus, stay updated with real-time buzz all day through our brand new Inside Congress Live feature. Learn more and subscribe here.     Names in the News Seth Frazier is now managing director at Manatt Health. He previously was an adviser at Eleanor Health. WHAT WE'RE READING POLITICO’s Robert King reports on Republicans’ push for a price transparency bill despite opposition from hospitals. POLITICO’s Katherine Ellen Foley reports on the FDA’s rejection of the first nasal spray for allergic reactions until further studies are completed. STAT News reports on a new study that shows reinfection contributes additional risk of long Covid.   A message from PhRMA: Your prescription might have different out-of-pocket costs at different pharmacies. Why? Because insurance companies and their pharmacy benefit mangers (PBMs) can make more money if you use the pharmacies they own. So they’ll try to steer you to what’s best for them, instead of what’s best for you. It’s another way that insurance companies and their PBMs put their profits before your health. See what else Middlemen are up to.     Follow us on Twitter Dan Goldberg @dancgoldberg Chelsea Cirruzzo @chelseacirruzzo Katherine Ellen Foley @katherineefoley Lauren Gardner @Gardner_LM Kelly Hooper @kelhoops Robert King @rking_19 Ben Leonard @_BenLeonard_ David Lim @davidalim Megan Messerly @meganmesserly Alice Miranda Ollstein @aliceollstein Carmen Paun @carmenpaun Daniel Payne @_daniel_payne Evan Peng @thepngfile Ruth Reader @RuthReader Erin Schumaker @erinlschumaker Megan R. Wilson @misswilson   Follow us

To change your alert settings, please log in at https://www.politico.com/_login?base=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com/settings This email was sent to rouf@idiot.cloudns.cc by: POLITICO, LLC 1000 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA, 22209, USA Please click here and follow the steps to unsubscribe.