A U.S. judge blocked the implementation of a California law that sought to punish doctors for spreading “misinformation” about COVID-19 while he considers two lawsuits challenging the measure as an infringement on the First Amendment.
Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of California ruled on Wednesday that Assembly Bill 2098, which was signed into law last October by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), was not clear enough for doctors and physicians to understand what kinds of statements could put them at risk of punishment, issuing a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs who sued.
In a 30-page opinion, Shubb said the defendants in the case, Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta, California medical and osteopathic boards, failed to provide “evidence that ‘scientific consensus’ has any established technical meaning,” adding that the law contains “no clarity” on the meaning of the word “misinformation.”
“COVID-19 is a quickly evolving area of science that in many aspects eludes consensus,” Shubb added.
CALIFORNIA ADVANCES BILL PUNISHING DOCTORS FOR CONTRADICTING CONSENSUS ON COVID-19
The preliminary injunction keeps the law from being enforced while Shubb hears a pair of lawsuits brought against the law shortly after it passed last year. One case was brought by two advocacy groups, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense, while another was brought by a group of five doctors.
“CHD and the California chapter are excited and proud to be a part of this groundbreaking litigation, especially since there are other states also trying to censor physicians for speaking out against the mainstream medical’s position of the safety and efficacy while downplaying if not ignoring the harm caused to many who have taken the COVID shots and every booster,” CHD Chairman and Chief Litigation Counsel Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote in a press statement.
The recently passed law allows doctors to be disciplined for spreading so-called COVID-19 misinformation, which is defined as “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.”
Doctors complained in their suit that there was a lack of clarity on what the “contemporary scientific consensus” on COVID-19 is but ultimately argued the law is a strict violation of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. They also referenced existing malpractice laws that are in effect to discipline doctors who give harmful advice to patients.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The American Civil Liberties Union also submitted a brief in federal court back in November supporting the plaintiffs, arguing AB 2098 is a “content-based regulation encompassing speech protected by the First Amendment.”
“While the government must play a role in licensing and regulating physicians, the First Amendment strictly limits restrictions on doctor-patient communications,” attorneys for the ACLU added.
