SUPPORTING STATEMENT : In 2022, Gilead Sciences (“the Company”) demonstrated clear rhetorical opposition to the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe v. Wade. “This decision will have significant implications for women’s healthcare,” the Company wrote in a public statement1 at the time. “As a healthcare organization, we understand medical decisions are deeply personal, and we believe they should be made by individuals with advice from their physicians.” The statement further notes the Company’s commitment to covering travel expenses for employees seeking “women’s reproductive health services,” a phrase clearly encompassing abortions, and pledged to match employee donations to organizations providing “reproductive health services” up to $15,000.



Despite the language in its response to Dobbs, however, the Company’s behavior seems to indicate a belief that medical decisions related to abortion ought to involve patients, physicians, and also the opinions of Gilead Sciences. In 2023, the Company signed on to a brief2 challenging a Texas court’s decision to limit access to mifepristone, a drug commonly used during abortive procedures.3 The Gilead-signed brief argued that the decision constituted an “unnecessary and unscientific barrier” to the medical process and would ultimately result in “destabilizing the pharmaceutical industry.”



Abortion is indeed a “deeply personal” issue to all parties involved—views on the topic are often rooted in an individual’s core belief system, making taking a position on it a potential reputational, legal, and financial liability for a company—yet Gilead Sciences has insisted on doing just that.



By criticizing laws that restrict access to abortive drugs and implementing a clear pathway to pay for abortion access, the Company makes clear its opposition to pro-life legislation that limits abortion. This positioning is particularly troubling considering the Company’s emphasis on Diversity & Inclusion,4 wherein it affirms a commitment to diverse “thinking styles [and] beliefs,” and furthermore aspires to “fostering a work environment where our differences are valued.” Does such an embrace of ideological diversity extend to all views on contentious issues, or merely the opinions the Company deems to be politically in vogue or convenient to advocate for?



Taking positions on issues the Company admits are “deeply personal” and “should be made by individuals with advice from their physicians” can only serve to alienate consumers, employees, and investors and impact the Company’s bottom line. The Company should instead focus on its pharmaceutical mission and its fiduciary duty to shareholders, a fiduciary duty likely to be violated by engaging in politically divisive rhetoric and/or actions.