COVID-19 Misinformation and AB2098
.jpg)
California Assembly Bill 2098 became law on September 30,
2022. This bill designates the dissemination of misinformation or
disinformation related to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, or "COVID-19,"
as unprofessional conduct. The law requires either the Medical Board of
California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, the two licensing
and regulatory entities, to take action against any licensed physician and
surgeon for unprofessional conduct. The law defines “misinformation” as anything that
“is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus.”
The bill was sponsored by one Democratic Assemblyman and
five Democratic Assemblymen co-sponsors. The vote was 56 Yes, 20 No, and 4 Other.
On the other side of the coin, several civil rights
organizations and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons are
objecting to the new law. It is being called a power-grab. They claim it is
unconstitutional as infringing on the doctors’ free speech, allowing viewpoint
discrimination. Some doctors say it undermines their ability to best treat
their patients without interference from the government and will actually put
their patients at risk.
The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a nonpartisan,
nonprofit civil rights group, on November 2, 2022 issued a Press
Release announcing their suit as attorneys for five medical doctors plaintiffs against
Governor Newsom and the California Medical Board from enforcing the new law.
The complaint is on the grounds of the constitutionality of both free speech and
due process. The motion for preliminary injunction seeks to halt the
enforcement of the law.
To read more details and arguments for and against this
issue, including the bill, the full legal complaint and injunction, see sources
below.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article268292892.html
https://openstates.org/ca/bills/20212022/AB2098/
https://libertyjusticecenter.org/media/medical-censorship-misinformation-police-ab-2098/
https://californiahealthcoalitionadvocacy.org/AB2098/
This post was informative, I wasn't aware of this bill. It would be nice if it extended pass the physicians and also included politicians. One of the main misinformation regarding covid-19 resulted in the race discrimination against the Asians due to the mis information being spread by our former president donald trump. I hope we can one day not allow politicians to get away with that.
ReplyDeleteHey Deb,
ReplyDeleteThis was a very good post, that brought to my awareness something that I had not heard of until now. Even as someone who saw the pushback against basic science concerning the Covid-19 pandemic as ridiculous, I still find this bill to be very concerning. Yes, the spread of misinformation is a bad thing, especially in the context of pandemic, but enforcing a law, with both such widespread reach and vague parameters, is not a good thing. Throughout history there have been numerous times in which well educated individuals have fought against the scientific consensus and turned out to be correct. What this bill effectively does is completely eliminates any and all scientific progress by censoring well-educated individuals from issue differing opinions. As such, this bill holds clear bias, as it effectively allows state governmental actors to determine what is scientifically "true" solely because that is the generally consensus at the time. Such a bill is not only concerning in the context of free speech, but also scientific ethics. Ovearll great post.
Deb, I had no idea that California has passed this law. I would be interested to see the lawsuits that follow. It is important to not spread misinformation but so much of what we are battling is the relationships between government/media and how it can be interrupted legally. What is defined as a scientific consensus? How can we be sure about all of our initial findings when there is still a lot of future research to be done. While I am in favor of not spreading misinformation regarding COVID, it seems to be a tricky issue as to what all can be determined as misinformation. As we are already seeing, free speech will be at the center of this debate.
ReplyDeleteI had never heard of this before reading this blog post. I think that free speech is important and should be protected, but I don't think intentionally damaging or harmful speech counts as free speech. The suit in this case doesn't seem to hold ground because spreading misinformation about COVID can directly lead to harm of the general population. It will be interesting to see where this case goes.
ReplyDelete