Lauren Dempsey, MS in Biomedicine and Law, RN, FISM News
Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law on Sept. 30 that would punish physicians who spread “misinformation” about COVID-19, though there has already been a lawsuit filed that challenges the constitutionality of the legislation.
Under Assembly Bill 2098, California physicians and surgeons who knowingly spread “misinformation or disinformation related to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus”, or COVID-19, will be disciplined by state medical boards and could lose their licenses for so-called “unprofessional conduct,” because — the law claims — this has “weakened public confidence and placed lives at serious risk.”
Such conduct includes spreading unapproved “information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.”
AB 2098 will allow the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California to take “enforcement action” against these physicians which could result in probation or loss of medical licenses for failing to follow the scientific consensus or current standard of practice.
Generally, “scientific consensus” is the opinion of the majority of scientists in a particular field or at a specific time. However, this bill seems to attempt to establish that there will be no consensus outside of what the government dictates, leaving little to no room for observing data and using clinical judgment.
In other words, under the new legislation the government of California has the authority to dictate the “science” and any medical professional who dares question the determined narrative could lose their license.
Two doctors have already filed a federal lawsuit against the state in an attempt to stop the law.
BREAKING: Doctors sue California Medical Board, Attorney General over doctor censorship law, AB 2098 https://t.co/Hm91O9SrqG
— Liberty Justice Center (@LJCenter) October 4, 2022
The Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit law firm dedicated to protecting Americans’ constitutional rights, is representing Los Angeles psychiatrist Dr. Mark McDonald and Dr. Jeff Barke, an primary care physician in Orange County. They filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Medical Board of California and California Attorney General Rob Bonta.
The plaintiffs also filed papers seeking a preliminary injunction to protect their free speech rights as the case unfolds, according to the Liberty Justice Law Center.
“We rely on our doctors to give us their best medical advice, yet the State of California is stopping doctors from doing just that,” Daniel Suhr, managing attorney at the Liberty Justice Center, said in a statement. “That’s not just wrong, it’s unconstitutional. Doctors enjoy the same free speech rights as other Americans. The State of California cannot define a so-called scientific consensus on an issue and then punish anyone who dares challenge it.”
California lawmakers are using bills like AB 2098 to push their own agenda and punish and silence physicians who disagree with the ever-changing, confusing, and contradictory COVID-19 health policies and public health measures. However, on average it takes approximately17 years for medical research to make it into actual practice. This law doesn’t take into account that science is always changing and evolving.
Dr. McDonald pointed to the changing and inconsistent “scientific consensus” throughout the pandemic as evidence that this law is dangerous.
If this period has taught us anything, it is that the scientific and medical environments are constantly evolving, as new information and studies confirm or reject prior policies. Doctors need the freedom to explore alternatives and share opinions that challenge the scientific consensus — that is inherent in the nature of the scientific enterprise. California cannot insert itself into the physician-patient relationship to impose its views on doctors and end all debate on these important questions.
Gov. Newsom said he believes that signing this bill into law will not infringe on the relationship between patients and doctors because “it is narrowly tailored to apply only to those egregious instances in which a licensee is acting with malicious intent or clearly deviating from the required standard of care.” He wrote in a statement that he is “confident that discussing emerging ideas or treatments including the subsequent risks and benefits does not constitute misinformation or disinformation under this bill’s criteria.”
He did admit that there could be a “chilling effect” that similar laws could have on physicians “who need to effectively talk to their patients about the risks and benefits of treatments for a disease that appeared in just the last few years.”
However, “health experts” and those who promote the government-sponsored “scientific consensus” have continuously been wrong throughout the pandemic on COVID-19 infections, transmissions, prevention, treatment, and vaccines, which have been shown to have poor efficacy and serious issues concerning safety and side effects.
This story was partially informed by a report from the Liberty Justice Center. Additions and edits by Jacob Fuller, FISM News.