HEALTH FREEDOM VICTORY: California legislature quietly scraps “medical misinformation” law AB 2098 after judge obliterates its constitutionality
In an unexpected but expedient turn of events, the infamous “medical misinformation” bill, known as Assembly Bill 2098, that was passed last year in California and signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom has been quietly struck from the books after Judge Danielle Forrest obliterated the arguments put forth by its supporters.
AB 2098 would have given Newsom and the California legislature free rein to strip the licenses of doctors who disagree with the official “scientific consensus” on the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) and other health-related issues. Thankfully, AB 2098 is dead thanks to the efforts of five doctors – Tracy Hoeg, Ram Duriseti, Aaron Kheriaty, Pete Mazolewsky, and Azadeh Khatibi – that sued over the bill’s unconstitutional violations of both the First and Fourth Amendments.
In court, the five physicians successfully argued that AB 2098 would have prevented them from providing pertinent and relevant information to their patients that may contradict what the law would have restricted or prohibited them from saying. In essence, AB 2098 was a bullying bill that threatened to demolish the entire medical system in the Golden State by turning it communist.
Watch Dr. Kheriaty’s testimony in opposition to AB 2098 below:
(Related: Another thing the rogue California legislature, Newsom included, is trying to do involves de-licensing all doctors throughout the state who refuse to follow the official COVID script.)
California legislature behaving suspiciously with AB 2098 repeal as it toys around with shell game tactics to deter lawsuit
The lawsuit has not yet ended, but the California legislature can clearly see that it is losing, which is why it quietly added a provision to Senate Bill 815 to repeal AB 2098.
“It’s incredibly last minute,” commented Laura Powell, one of the lawyers representing the five suing doctors who successfully obtained a preliminary injunction against AB 2098 back in January.
“Thursday is the last day to vote on bills, and it has to be passed by both chambers. We are unlikely to move for dismissal at this time, certainly not until repeal is complete.”
In other words, Powell seems to be expressing concern that the California legislature might be trying to pull a fast one by inserting the AB 2098 repeal language into SB 815, which may not end up passing, in order to persuade the plaintiffs to lower their guard and even drop the case too soon before SB 815 has the chance to get passed and signed into law.
“I guess the state doesn’t feel good about its chances of prevailing since we obtained a preliminary injunction against this unconstitutional law,” Powell tweeted.
In the court room after Deputy Attorney General Kristin Liska tried to claim that AB 2098 is necessary to stop doctors from telling patients that “garlic cures cancer,” as one example, Judge Forrest blasted her tactics and further indicated that the California legislature is on the losing side of this battle.
“You give some dramatic examples, and I understand why,” Judge Forrest chided, adding that disagreement over COVID treatments is an entirely different matter and “has existed even amongst the medical community about what we do about it.”
Judge Forrest would go on to explain to Liska, and ultimately the California legislature itself, that AB 2098 unnecessarily refers to “consensus in the scientific community as though that’s something different or in addition to the standard of care” that doctors are already expected to follow.
“Not allowing ‘medical misinformation’ when half of all medical research gets overturned eventually actually means forcing medical misinformation,” one commenter noted.
“Real science, not The Science™, needs open discussion, dumb ideas, bad ideas, wrong ideas, and free speech in general to function.”
The idea of “medical misinformation” is just another phony notion, just like the concept of a “hate crime” that free speech haters are trying to use as justification to abolish the First Amendment. Learn more at Censorship.news.
Sources for this article include: