California’s “Misinformation” Law Targets “Doctor Zero”
Commentary
Jan. 1 saw the enactment of an Orwellian gag-order, which was unconstitutional and illegal. The title “Physicians and surgeons: unprofessional conduct,” The Medical Board of California has the authority to discipline doctors under the provisions of the law. “disseminate” misinformation.
It’s an obvious and direct attack on the First Amendment—freedom of speech—as well as the Fifth Amendment, which says an individual cannot be compelled by the government to provide incriminating information about himself, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection under the laws.
This law seeks to make a new standard undefined. “contemporary scientific consensus” Illegally suppress different professional opinions contrary to the consensus on COVID-19
Different professional opinions are protected by the First Amendment from government interference and censorship. Different professional opinions are also protected by the First Amendment. This is because patients have a longstanding right to access the time-honored medical care. “second opinion.” If everyone was forced to take the indefinable “contemporary scientific consensus,” A second opinion could be considered valid “misinformation.”
I am both a physician, attorney, and interested in this law because it can be very dangerous for patients as well as doctors. I happen to be a doctor. “Doctor Zero,” This law was passed by the California legislature because it was unconstitutional.
The transcripts of the committee hearings and bill analyses, mentioning me by name as the founder of America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS), can be found at This link. These legislative hearings, especially on May 13th and Aug. 30, 2022, are shockingly targeted at a particular individual. Such a deeply flawed legislative history also undermines the bill’s legality.
First and Fourteenth Amendments
The most recent Supreme Court precedent regarding free speech is Becerra v. National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. NIFLA, California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency Act, (FACT Act), tried to impose mandatory medical language on health care professionals. FACT Act required prolife health care clinics that patients were informed about the availability of low-cost or free abortions in California. The clinics had to also provide patients with a number where they could call for such services.
The United States Supreme Court ruled that this law was an unconstitutional violation the First Amendment. The Court pointed out that speech laws that target speech based on its content are presumed unconstitutional.
Also, the Court stated explicitly that “Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by professionals.”
California’s new law attempts to do exactly the same thing. “contemporary scientific consensus” This is mandatory medical speech that must be used and is a serious constitutional violation.
According to the Fourteenth Amendment, the new law is unconstitutionally null for vagueness. According to Village of Hoffman Estates, v. Flipside Hoffman Estates Inc., “perhaps the most important factor affecting the clarity that the constitution demands of a law is whether it threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. If, for example, the law interferes with the right of free speech or of association, a more stringent vagueness test should apply.”
Court Challenges
Currently, there are three federal lawsuits against the new law.
Hoang v. Bonta was filed on Dec. 1, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California by Physicians for Informed Consent And the California Chapter of Children’s Health Defense on behalf of plaintiff Dr. Letrinh Hoang, a California licensed osteopathic physician with more than 25 years’ experience.
The suit alleges that the new California law violates physicians’ First Amendment and free speech rights by prohibiting them from sharing information with their patients if it is inconsistent with what the law refers to as “contemporary scientific consensus” and the “standard of care.”
Høeg v. Newsom Filled on Nov. 1, 2022 at the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of California by New Civil Liberties Alliance. It is a non-partisan civil rights organization. The plaintiff, California-licensed physician Dr. Tracy Høeg, argues the defendants violate the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment rights, as the terms “misinformation,” “disinformation,” And “scientific consensus” Are “unconstitutionally vague.”
McDonald’s v. Lawson This was the first lawsuit filed against the new law. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for Central District of California on October 4, 2022 against the Medical Board of California (and Attorney General).
Advocates for Faith & Freedom & Liberty Justice Center filed it on behalf two AFLDS affiliated doctors from southern California. Dr. Mark McDonald works as a psychiatrist while Dr. Jeff Barke works as a primary care doctor. Both doctors claim that the new law is contrary to the First Amendment. “unconstitutionally vague.” As it was dismissed with leave of amend, the case is still pending. Therefore, an amended complaint must now be filed.
Supporting vs. Opposing Groups
The Federation of State Medical Boards and the American Medical Association are the groups that support this censorship.
The groups opposing this censorship include AFLDS, Advocates for Faith & Freedom, Advocates for Physicians’ Rights, American Civil Liberties Union, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, California Health Coalition Advocacy, Children’s Health Defense, Liberty Justice Center, New Civil Liberties Alliance, and Physicians for Informed Consent.
The California Code should be repealed because of its remarkable legislative history, which targets individual physicians’ free speech rights, and multiple violations of the United States Constitution. California’s legislators are not able to provide the kind of dispassionate and well-reasoned legal analysis the law requires.
The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect The Epoch Times.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
