Legal Complaint Takes on California Law Mandating Doctors Comply With 'COVID-19 ...

[Traddles]

Legal Complaint Takes on California Law Mandating Doctors Comply With 'COVID-19 Consensus'

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politic...ensus-n1646080

A new California law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom empowers the Medical Board of California to discipline physicians who “disseminate” information regarding COVID-19 that departs from the “contemporary scientific consensus.” The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group, filed a complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction in Hoeg, et al. v. Newsom, et al., asking the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to prevent the law, AB 2098, from going into effect.

The NCLA represents five physicians licensed by the Medical Board of California (MBC), most of whom treat patients on a regular basis. Drs. Hoeg, Duriseti, Kheriaty, Mazolewski, and Khatibi allege Assembly Bill (AB) 2098, signed into law on September 30, 2022, violates their First Amendment rights to free speech and their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process of law.

NCLA attorney Jenin Younes says the new law targets the doctor-patient relationship. The law also practices viewpoint discrimination and creates a severe chilling effect in direct violation of the First Amendment. AB 2098 subjects plaintiffs to discipline and negative professional consequences, including loss of license, for conveying non-consensus messages to their patients. It has already been used as a weapon to intimidate and punish doctors who dissent from mainstream views. Several plaintiffs have experienced threats on social media from doctors and individuals willing to use AB 2098 to take their licenses away.

1. The law is moronic (is that a clear enough opinion?). "Consensus" is vague, and to the extent it means anything, it is absurdly one-size-fits-all, practicing physicians are not necessarily aware of new meds/treatments, and punishes/hinders development of new meds/treatments. As the legal complaint points out, it side-steps due process so as to squash free speech. It also is a "camel's nose" that could be used for further abuse (e.g. against Ob/Gyns and nurses who are Pro-Life). Because of this potential, I'm posting this here.

2. Being curious, I DDGed several of the plaintiffs. They have a wide range of specialties, from psychiatry to GP to surgeon, and, variously, practice at/within Sutter Health, John Muir Medical Center, UC Irvine, and Children's Health of Orange County.

[old dog]

I just looked over the "New Civil Liberties Alliance" website. It seems to be what the ACLU should be and once was. They are for privacy, free speech and gun rights. After a little more research I'll send them some money.

Check them out:

https://nclalegal.org/

[Traddles]

California Judge Grants Injunction to NCLA Clients, Halts Implementation of Law Censoring Doctors

https://nclalegal.org/2023/01/califo...oring-doctors/

Washington, DC (January 25, 2023) – Senior Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California today granted NCLA’s motion for preliminary injunction in Høeg, et al. v. Newsom, et al. He held that plaintiffs have standing to bring a legal challenge, and enjoined implementation of Assembly Bill (AB) 2098 in California. The controversial state law empowered the Medical Board of California to discipline physicians who “disseminate” information regarding Covid-19 that departs from the “contemporary scientific consensus.” Judge Shubb stated that “the ‘contemporary scientific consensus’ lacks an established meaning within the medical community,” and thus, because the “scientific consensus” is so ill-defined and vague, the physician plaintiffs in the lawsuit are “unable to determine if their intended conduct contradicts the scientific consensus, and accordingly ‘what is prohibited by the law.’”

This ruling enjoins enforcing this law while litigation happens. It means that the plaintiffs have "standing" - they would be directly affected by the law - and their lawsuit is not frivolous (their claims of potential damage appear substantial). The actual trial is likely to take another 6-12 months, and appeals (it's likely to at least go to the Ninth Circus Court) probably another year or two.

[donttread]

Legal Complaint Takes on California Law Mandating Doctors Comply With 'COVID-19 Consensus'

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politic...ensus-n1646080



1. The law is moronic (is that a clear enough opinion?). "Consensus" is vague, and to the extent it means anything, it is absurdly one-size-fits-all, practicing physicians are not necessarily aware of new meds/treatments, and punishes/hinders development of new meds/treatments. As the legal complaint points out, it side-steps due process so as to squash free speech. It also is a "camel's nose" that could be used for further abuse (e.g. against Ob/Gyns and nurses who are Pro-Life). Because of this potential, I'm posting this here.

2. Being curious, I DDGed several of the plaintiffs. They have a wide range of specialties, from psychiatry to GP to surgeon, and, variously, practice at/within Sutter Health, John Muir Medical Center, UC Irvine, and Children's Health of Orange County.

Exactly vague enough to be used as a political weapon. If no other area of medical science requires such standards why should COVID?
Doctors tend to be very data driven to begin with so what exactly are they afraid of