Attorneys say AB 2098 is unconstitutional, violation of 1st Amendment
State of California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 2098 into law, which punishes doctors and surgeons for “unprofessional behavior” by advocating for the potential benefits of off-label drugs or asking questions about COVID vaccine safety.
The proposed Assembly Bill 2098 puts unconstitutional restrictions on what medical professionals can say, by dictating that they must only share “approved COVID treatment consensus.” If doctors do not obey this standard, they could face punishment from the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California.
The “consensus,” according to Dr. Peter Mazolewski, the Globe reported last week, is established by a panel of people who don’t even have medical degrees. The medical board? State officials in public health? Neither all of the members of the Medical Board nor all of California’s public health officials are medically trained individuals.
“To be clear, this bill does not apply to any speech outside of discussions pertaining to Covid-19 therapy within a direct physician patient connection,” Gov. Newsom wrote in his signing statement, as if restricting doctors’ censorship to one medical issue is acceptable. Imagine if specialists were banned from discussing various cancer therapies or heart problems.
The Governor of the State of California is telling the state’s licensed physicians that when they are treating a Covid patient, they must remain in the lane of the consensus of the CDC or CDPH treatment protocols.
Laura Powell, founder of Californians for Good Governance explains in a June AB 2098 opposition letter:
“There is no question that the bill is aimed at restricting speech based on its content. As such, it would be presumptively invalid and could only be upheld if the government could prove that the law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.”
Which it does not.
Physicians would be unjustly punished for if they were to sharing sound medical information with their patients that is needed for them to make a well-defined risk/benefit analysis.
The bill is aimed at physicians who acknowledged the 1% mortality rate, questioned mandatory masks, school closures, and challenged the claim that the vaccine would shield patients from getting or spreading Covid. It is also aimed at physicians who chose to prescribe therapeutic treatments during COVID.
“Censorship and criminalization are not the bulwarks of a free society,” attorney Leigh Dundas said at the AB 2098 protest rally Friday at the State Capitol. “The stark reality is if we are to remain a Constitutional Republic, then doctors must remain free to practice medicine.”
“Science and medicine are constantly evolving by challenging the status quo,” Dundas added.
And Dundas warned that if this bill to censor California’s doctors is allowed to stand, “guess who is next on the chopping block – the press.”
Tech entrepreneur Steve Kirsch addressed the AB 2098 protesters Friday. “I’m labeled a misinformation superspreader, but (Senator) Dr. Pan can’t silence me because I’m not a doctor.”
“It’s [AB 2098] unconstitutional and anti-science,” Kirsch continued. “Tenure was created in universities to allow people to speak out without retribution. This is a special law targeted at misinformation for Covid-19, and that’s not science.”
As Laura Powell noted, the bill does not address the problem it sets out to fix. The supporters of the bill argue that there is a problem with doctors who widely amplify falsehoods about Covid-19, but silencing them would be unconstitutional. To address the constitutional issues, it would have to be reduced to the point that it simply duplicate existing law. Proponents are unable to cite a single example of a harm that could be prevented.
As Dr. Pete Mazolewski said, the goal of Assembly Bill 2098 is to subvert due process against doctors for speaking out about “Covid misinformation conduct.”
AB 2098 threatens to punish physicians and surgeons for “unprofessional conduct” merely for advocating the potential benefits of early treatment with off-label drugs, and is deigned to question COVID vaccine safety. Early action and critical thinking could save lives – but this Bill aims to silence those working on the front lines.
Does the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention decide “approved COVID treatment consensus?” Even CDC Director Rochelle Walensky recently admitted her agency’s failures during the COVID-19 pandemic during a message to her staff in August.
ABC reported, “To be frank, we are responsible for some pretty dramatic, pretty public mistakes. From testing, to data, to communications,” Walensky said.
Does the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention decide “approved COVID treatment consensus”? During a speech to her staff in August, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky even acknowledged her agency’s shortcomings during the COVID-19 epidemic, according to ABC. “To be frank, we are responsible for some pretty dramatic, pretty public mistakes. From testing, to data, to communications,” she added. Is it really that hard to believe that what is actually happening is much more serious than anything you’ve ever seen? The fact of the matter is there was no reported outbreak at all.
“We know there were a lot of problems with the CDC… if we speak out right now, we run the risk of losing our licenses,” Dr. Mazolewski said.