A federal judge in California has temporarily blocked the enforcement of AB 2098, a measure which punished doctors for not pushing the state-directive narratives surrounding covid.
Judge William Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the preliminary injunction Wednesday in two related cases that challenged the law’s constitutionality.In December, Judge Fred W. Slaughter of the U.S. District Court for California’s Central District denied a similar motion in a separate lawsuit aimed at the bill.Also on Wednesday, the 9th Circuit agreed to hear the appeal for that case alongside a fourth, similar lawsuit filed in California’s Southern District.Judge William Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the preliminary injunction Wednesday in two related cases that challenged the law’s constitutionality.In December, Judge Fred W. Slaughter of the U.S. District Court for California’s Central District denied a similar motion in a separate lawsuit aimed at the bill.Also on Wednesday, the 9th Circuit agreed to hear the appeal for that case alongside a fourth, similar lawsuit filed in California’s Southern District.
In the 30-page ruling, the judge blasted the definition of “misinformation“.
The law defines misinformation as “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.” Judge Shubb called the law’s definition of misinformation “nonsense.”The NCLA argued that “The term ‘contemporary scientific consensus’ is undefined in the law and undefinable as a matter of logic. No one can know, at any given time, the ‘consensus’ of doctors and scientists on various matters related to prevention and treatment of Covid-19. And even if such a poll could theoretically be taken, who would qualify to be polled? Only those doctors treating Covid-19 patients?All doctors and scientists, or only those in certain fields? Who determines which fields? How often would such polls be taken to ensure the results are based on the most up-to-date science? How large a majority (or plurality) of the polled professionals qualifies as a ‘consensus’? The very existence of these questions illustrates that any attempt at a legal definition of ‘scientific consensus’ according to which doctors must operate in their day-to-day practice is impractical and borders on the absurd.”
Aaron Kheriaty, MD, is listed as one of the physicians in the lawsuit. He shared his thoughts on this ruling via Twitter.
The ruling also highlights that doctors would be considered to have standing in these cases.
“One more detail here,” he added. “The preliminary injunction ruling also establishes that we five physicians have standing to challenge the law. This is important because a similar challenge filed against AB2098 was dismissed based on a ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing.”The New Civil Liberties Alliance represent the doctors, or NCLA, which is a nonpartisan civil rights firm.
Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg is the named complainant in the Høeg v Newsom case. She considers it a victory for free speech.
It is also a win for the good people of California, who like their doctors who keep them fully informed and would like to keep them.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY