A lawsuit filed by five physicians against Gov. Gavin Newsom challenging AB 2098 is scheduled for a hearing in January in which the court is being asked to halt the state’s COVID medical misinformation law under a preliminary injunction.
“We're arguing that the language of the law is not sufficiently clear to allow for the equal protection rights of physicians to know whether or not they're complying with it,” said Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, a former professor of psychiatry at the University of California-Irvine School of Medicine.
Newsom signed AB 2098 into law on Sept. 30 despite opposition from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) after the California General Assembly approved the measure 56-20 on Aug. 30. It will become effective on Jan. 1, 2023
“Unfortunately, the first hearing is a few weeks into January so the law will be in effect for the first few weeks of January or at least until we have the hearing,” Kheriaty said.
AB 2098 will classify perceived disinformation as unprofessional conduct as well as strip physicians of their license to practice for prescribing treatments with off-label drugs that are unapproved by the state.
“The idea that you can censor opinions from physicians or scientists and still have the scientific enterprises could only be advanced by someone who does not understand how science and medicine actually work,” Kheriaty told the Southern California Record at Turning Point USA's AmericaFest in Phoenix.
AmericaFest is a conservative political conference staged annually by Turning Point USA. Kheriaty was a featured speaker on the COVID and the Rise of Medical Fascism panel discussion.
Other plaintiffs in Høeg et al v. Newsom include Drs. Tracy Høeg, Ram Duriseti, Pete Mazolewski, Azadeh Khatibi, and New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA).
The complaint was filed on Nov. 1 in the Eastern District of California alleging that AB 2098 is being weaponized as a way to silence, intimidate and punish doctors who dissent from mainstream views.
“We argue that it violates First Amendment free speech by basically putting a gag order on physicians and intruding into the doctor-patient relationship in a way that will basically dictate to physicians what they can say and what they can't say in response to a question,” Kheriaty said.
The state’s reply challenges the plaintiffs’ standing in the case by arguing that within the doctors’ medical specialties, they are not necessarily having conversations about COVID with their patients.
But Kheriaty says the argument is crazy.
“People in every medical specialty are having conversations because our patients are asking us about COVID,” he said. “Not to mention the fact that I've been very public on my ethical views on certain Covid policies. So, patients at the very least talk to me about ethical issues related to COVID policies."