CategoryAB 2098
Posted on by adminLast updated

Physicians for Informed Consent Successfully Obtains Federal Court Injunction Protecting Freedom of Speech Regarding COVID-19

Federal Judge bars enforcement of California’s COVID-19 “misinformation” law on grounds the new law is unconstitutionally vague 

NEWPORT BEACH, Calif., January 26, 2023 (Newswire.com) – With lead litigator Richard Jaffe, Esq., Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), a nonprofit educational organization, succeeded this week in blocking the enforcement of AB 2098/Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2270 (2:22-cv-01980-WBS-AC).

The doctor-censorship law targeted supposed COVID-19 “misinformation” spoken to patients. The judge criticized the new law for its vagueness and granted the multiple plaintiffs’ requests for preliminary injunction, thereby protecting all PIC members from enforcement of AB 2098—at least until the case, Hoang et al. v. Bonta, is finally decided.

Senior Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California Court in Sacramento, in his preliminary injunction order, thoroughly dissected the meaning of AB 2098’s definition of “misinformation” (“false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care”) and determined that it caused the statute to be “unconstitutionally vague.” He wrote:

  • “Put simply, this provision is grammatically incoherent.”
  • “The statute provides no means of understanding to what ‘scientific consensus’ refers.”
  • “By its very nature, the standard of care applies to care, not information.”
  • “The statute improperly conflates ‘information’ with ‘advice’ or ‘treatment.'”
  • “More importantly, defendants’ interpretation does nothing to address the chilling effect caused by the statute’s unclear phrasing and structure.”
  • “…drawing a line between what is true and what is settled by scientific consensus is difficult, if not impossible.”
  • “…because COVID-19 is such a new and evolving area of scientific study, it may be hard to determine which scientific conclusions are ‘false’ at a given point in time.”

Judge Shubb favorably referenced cardiologist, PIC member, and expert witness Dr. Sanjay Verma’s declaration frequently in his preliminary injunction order to underscore the vagueness of AB 2098. For example, Judge Shubb wrote, “Dr. Verma cites numerous examples of contrary guidance provided by the CDC on the issues of masking and vaccination.”

Dr. Shira Miller, PIC founder and president, was present at the hearing. After reading the Court’s order, Dr. Miller shared her optimism: “We are grateful for the Court’s decision and hopeful that soon all California physicians will be able to stop self-censoring and be able to communicate openly and honestly with their patients.”

The court has not ruled yet on the merits of PIC’s first amendment arguments, and until the case is decided only PIC members and Children’s Health Defense, California Chapter, members are protected by the preliminary injunction, as well as the physicians in the related Høeg et al. v. Newsom lawsuit, as the Court expressly stated, “Pending final resolution of this action, defendants, their agents and employees, all persons or entities in privity with them, and anyone acting in concert with them are hereby ENJOINED from enforcing Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2270 as against plaintiffs, plaintiffs’ members, and all persons represented by plaintiffs.”

Physicians for Informed Consent is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit educational organization supported only by the generous contributions of our members and supporters. Click here to join today.

Press Contact:
info@picphysicians.org
925-642-6651

###

CLICK HERE to view on Newswire.
CLICK HERE to view on Facebook.
CLICK HERE to view on Instagram.
CLICK HERE to view on LinkedIn.
CLICK HERE to view on Twitter.

Posted on by adminLast updated

Physicians for Informed Consent Sues State of California, Argues That Doctor Censorship Bill AB 2098 Violates the U.S. Constitution

Physicians for Informed Consent Sues State of California, Argues That Doctor Censorship Bill AB 2098 Violates the U.S. Constitution

Federal Court to weigh controversial bill that PIC argues is an unlawful targeting of scientific dissent as ‘misinformation’

Newport Beach, CA — December 7, 2022 (Newswire)

Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), an educational nonprofit organization focused on science and statistics, has filed a First Amendment free speech lawsuit (2:22-cv-02147) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, and request for preliminary injunction, against the State of California and Osteopathic Medical Board of California in order to protect the free speech of all physicians in California.

The Plaintiffs are PIC and one of its founding members, physician LeTrinh Hoang, D.O., together with Children’s Health Defense, California Chapter. The legal team managing the case are Rick Jaffe, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Mary Holland.

The lawsuit argues that the State has weaponized the vague phrase “misinformation,” thereby unconstitutionally targeting physicians who publicly disagree with the government’s public health edicts on COVID-19.

Expert cardiologist and PIC member Sanjay Verma, M.D., has been tracking and cataloging CDC errors in real time. For the case, he has provided what he calls “a detailed declaration exposing the government’s scientific errors and the constitutional dangers of censoring dissent”:

“To demonstrate these points of vagueness and the general unsuitability of using ‘contemporary scientific consensus’ as a disciplinary criterion, I have prepared a detailed overview of public health response to the pandemic broken down into categories such as Masks and Vaccines (transmission, safety, efficacy of natural immunity). I have also included evidence of what [I testify] would be considered misinformation promulgated by the CDC as well as its withholding of information which led to the then ‘contemporary scientific consensus’ eventually being proven wrong.”

PIC President Shira Miller, M.D., was active in opposing AB 2098 while it was navigating the California legislative process, and has led the effort to bring the instant lawsuit. Opposing the bill, she wrote, “Public health is not achieved, and scientific knowledge does not progress, by censoring dissenting physicians and surgeons or anyone else. AB 2098 is anti-doctor, anti-public health, anti-science, and anti-free speech.”

The scheduled hearing on PIC’s motion for preliminary injunction is Jan. 17, 2023. PIC has requested the District Court issue a preliminary injunction that “AB 2098 is unconstitutional on its face.” The Complaint also requests the Court “issue a declaratory judgement that PIC and CHD patient members have a privacy right in their prescriptions for any off-label FDA approved medication” such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

Physicians for Informed Consent is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit educational organization supported only by the generous contributions of our members and supporters. Click here to make a contribution.

Press Contact:
info@picphysicians.org
925-642-6651

###

CLICK HERE to view on Newswire.
CLICK HERE to share on Twitter.
CLICK HERE to share on Facebook.
CLICK HERE to share on Instagram.
CLICK HERE to share on LinkedIn.