Is California's new AB 2098, the anti Covid vax disinfo bill, unconstitutional?

But, when companies support causes you agree with, you're all for it

 

Excellent video. Many on PF need to watch it in it’s entirety. Then watch it again. Then sleep on it and watch it again in the morning.

 

I don't. They are censorious authoritarian bastards violating the rights of a Free People. "Consensus" = "Narrative". They measure conduct against the narrative rather than real world facts and then would take a medical license? A doctor friend of mine shared that she had to leave her practice for sending her patients to the CDC website to see information that was counter to the COVID vaccine official narrative. She was ordered to stop giving them her concerns and telling them where to find the CDC information that validated her concerns. She has since reopened her own clinic where she can quietly communicate the facts as they develop, regardless of the narrative. If she was subject to this law, she would not be able to.

So, to answer your question, I hope it's not ruled constitutional and it most certainly needs to be court challenged.

Look at how many things regarding COVID have turned out to be true. Just my own first hand observations:

1. No person to person transmission - we were told as 5,000,000 people left Wuhan for airports all over the world during Chinese new year. I saw video of Chinese authorities spraying neighborhoods with massive trucks and chlorine and thought, "why would they do that if there was no person to person transmission and you can only get it by eating bush meat from infected animals from the meat market?
2. Came from the "meat market" rather than the nearby Wuhan Bio-labs. I looked at where the bat cave was, 800 miles away as the crow flies, but a 100 yards from the biolab. Clearly the infected person walked out of the lab was the simpler answer, but, that was "disinformation" for a year, until it became undeniable. As did person to person transfer.

An it went on and on and on. It turned out the 'disinformation" turned out to be as likely to be true as the 'narrative'. So no, I don't want the government narrative enforced by penalty. I want doctors to be free to fearlessly report the facts and speak freely to their patients.

'"Misinformation" is a highly dubious and debatable category. The scientific consensus has often expressed views relating to COVID-19 that were later contradicted. Official guidance with respect to masks has changed frequently. During the early days of the pandemic, White House coronavirus adviser Anthony Fauci initially downplayed the need for masks. Then, for more than a year, the scientific community urged people to wear any mask at all. Today, it is widely believed that only high-quality masks are offering meaningful protection. At various stages of the masking discourse, what many scientific experts had to say on the subject turned out to be inaccurate or at least incomplete.'

https://reason.com/2022/08/31/calif...or-doctors-to-spread-covid-19-misinformation/

'Governments have the power to regulate medical care, but the compelled speech component of AB 2098 would probably perturb the Supreme Court. Even some legal experts who support the bill's goals concede that it will have a hard time surviving scrutiny.'

"Initiatives like this will be challenged in court and will be hard to sustain," Michelle Mello, a professor of law and health policy at Stanford University, told The New York Times. Policing misinformation is a fraught task, and the state inserting itself between doctors and their patients is usually a recipe for disaster.'

 

To begin with, my response was thinking of someone like Dr. Mehmet Oz, so yes, I do believe doctors that wind up pushing over-the-counter "alternatives" (especially the ones they are marketing themselves) require far more scrutiny. He faced Congress a few years ago and I believe there was talk from the AMA of revoking his license because of that, but of course, he beat that rap.

I fear quackery more so than government regulation. I am not opposed to patients being counseled on alternative medicines, but even then there exists a problem because the vitamin and herbal supplements industry is completely unregulated. Consumer advocate organizations have tested many of them and what's on the label isn't actually what's in them. So how does one get a pure unadulterated vitamin or mineral supplement when you cannot trust the manufacturer?

I can relate to your example of statins. I was placed on them in my early 50's and struggled with them because of the side effects of muscle pain, but thankfully, there are plenty of statins for doctors to try and I eventually found Rosuvastatin to work without the side effects of the others.

Doctors do have the authority to go off FDA-recommended guidelines, so long as it is clinically sound to do so, usually, the biggest obstacle in those cases is with insurers who refuse to pay and second guess a doctor's treatment. Insurance companies in my opinion are a greater threat than government oversight of medical practices.

 

It shouldn't be lawmakers.

 

My point isn't about 'science' as it is about lawmakers intervening between me and my doctor. It's the same issue when rpubs are intervening between women and their doctors when it comes to their own health decisions.

 

You're confused. I'm not anti-business. Please reread my comment.

 

It doesn't matter who it is once given power by law makers they will do as those law makers wish it lose access to their politically connected sinecure.

 

Oh, I see. Lawmakers should not intervene in health decisions that are between you and your doctor unless the decision affects the health of others. However, the science behind what or who it affects is never based on one study. And if they err, they must err on the side of not adopting a decision that might affect the health of others.

 

I believe the doctors professional standards and guidelines should be professional association controlled, and not controlled by lawmakers who could be influenced by donations.

 

. I gotta agree with you on this. Medical people should be leading the parade towards new medicines and treatments rather than censoring some for dubious reasons. During the early days of the pandemic it seemed that anytime Trump mentioned a drug it was automatically banned; overlooking, of course that he didn't suddenly become a medical expert - folks like Birx and Fauci were whispering in his ear.
The history of medicine is packed with the medical hierarchy blocking new treatments and medicines that eventually become common practice.

And please no "waddaboutTrump" replies. Patricio started an excellent thread on a crucial topic. Let's keep that way.

 

Well, if it were to come down to that, I believe lawmakers should not be influenced by donations. But a doctor's decisions should be based on science. And so should guidelines by professional associations. If a doctor's decision is based on science, he shouldn't need to answer to either one. However, reality is that, as far as I know, guidelines by professional organizations ARE based on science. So I don't think there's a conflict.

 

That's just it, with a law, its something hanging over his head, 'prosecutor'.

I'd rather have someone from a professional trade association sending me a letter, than fear of a potential indictment's chilling effect.

It's all about the 'chilling effect'. I want my doctor to speak freely.

This is the essence of my point.

 

I would agree providing the medical associations are based on science and results and not political or Wokeness positions.

Hopefully true, but not always.

And yet there was, and is.

 

they could do like Texas, allow people to sue if they know a doctor is giving bad info, even those not a patient of the doctor

if Texas can do it, anyone can

 

agree.... like the food pyramid.... they jumped the gun before the science was in

 

or religious positions

 

They are not constitutional and will be thrown out of court rather quickly. This is the state demanding censorship of speech via an authorized actor acting on behalf of the state. It doesn't matter if it is the California Medical Board, Twitter or your local Walmart. If the state is asking for the third parties in question to censor on their behalf then it is denial of freedom of speech.

Think about it this way.........

Doctor: I support freedom of speech.

State: Yes but even with freedom of speech, you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater.

The state passes a law declaring that theater patrons who refuse to take the state position are engaged in misinformation regarding theaters and fire.

Doctor: Hey why am I being tossed out of this theater?

Medical Theater Board: You're yelling fire and that is misinformation!

Doctor: I asked if you had diet coke available.

Medical Theater Board: Sorry sir, the state has declared that misinformation and thus, you are yelling fire.

The law won't last five seconds under proper scrutiny.

 

we saw a lot of issues with the gov dietary recommendations and diabetes, doctors losing licenses for recommending low-carb for diabetes - they finally won, but was a fight

 

I don't like the law, either, we shall see what the courts say.

 

Like has nothing to do with it. This is the state demanding that an agency censor speech on their behalf. It is a classic first amendment violation.