California doctors express willingness to go to Supreme Court over COVID-19 ‘misinformation’ law

.

Virus Outbreak
A lab technician working a bottle containing for COVID-19 vaccine testing at Chula Vaccine Research Center, run by Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, Thailand, Monday, May 25, 2020. Thai health officials said that scientists in Thailand have had promising results in testing a COVID-19 vaccine candidate on mice, and have begun testing on monkeys. (Sakchai Lalit/AP)

California doctors express willingness to go to Supreme Court over COVID-19 ‘misinformation’ law

Video Embed

A team of California doctors expressed their willingness to take their case over a controversial COVID-19 “misinformation” law to the Supreme Court.

Assembly Bill 2098, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA), was due to take effect on New Year’s Day but was temporarily blocked by a federal judge after a lawsuit was filed by Aaron Kheriaty and four other doctors, Fox News Digital reported.

The law, criticized by the team as “unconstitutionally vague,” is being fought on the basis of an alleged violation of 1st and 14th Amendment rights. The plaintiffs said they are willing to take their case “all the way to the top,” referring to the Supreme Court.

The bill bans “unprofessional conduct” among physicians and would “designate the dissemination of misinformation or disinformation related to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, or “COVID-19,” as unprofessional conduct.”

WHO INVESTIGATION INTO COVID-19 ORIGINS STALLED WITHOUT ACCESS TO CHINESE DATA

“It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines,” it adds.

The bill goes on to assert the efficacy and necessity of COVID-19 vaccines.

Kheriaty argued that under the law, he could be prosecuted for providing vital medical information to patients related to COVID-19, such as advice on masks.

“We explained in our declarations that we’re still asked advice from patients frequently on COVID-related matters — masking, for example. Parents may ask me if that mask seems to be exacerbating their child’s anxiety disorder,” Kheriaty told Fox News Digital.

“This is a good idea to explain situations clinically in which we could potentially be impacted by this law. And in the order granting the preliminary injunction, the judge first said, ‘Yes, all five of the plaintiffs have standing to bring this case,’” Kheriaty added.

Kheriaty went on to argue that the law has resulted in a prevailing atmosphere of fear as doctors hold back on essential medical advice in an abundance of caution.

“It has a chilling effect on physicians. If physicians aren’t sure whether what they’re about to say violates the law, then they’re just going to read from a script prepared by the California Department of Public Health,” Kheriaty said.

He also said that he believes Newsom realizes the unconstitutional implications of the law, and the case has him worried.

“I think the governor was worried about this law when he signed it, and I think he was worried about the constitutionality of it,” he said.

Newsom’s office signaled that it would not appeal the judge’s decision to temporarily halt Assembly Bill 2098.

“Given the related appeals pending before the Ninth Circuit, both of which have an expedited briefing schedule and will be decided before this case, the state has determined it will not appeal this ruling at this time,” Newsom spokesman Brandon Richards told Fox News Digital in a statement.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Kheriaty concluded by laying out what he believes is the wider importance of his case — using it as precedent to prevent future government overreach.

“If the law would have stood and there were other areas of controversy within medicine where the state had particular interests that they wanted to advance, it would certainly set a strong precedent for the legislature to either amend that law, take out the word ‘COVID’ and change it to whatever any medical issue or to pass an additional law that applies to whatever,” he concluded.

© 2023 Washington Examiner

Related Content