Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in Case Against AB 2098
Dear PERK Members,
Physicians for Informed Consent, NCLA, Doctor Plaintiffs, and CHD brought a lawsuit against AB2098. Greg Glaser, Counsel for PHYSICIANS FOR INFORMED CONSENT worked closely with PERK to oppose AB 2098 during legislative debate. Glaser shared his optimism today with PERK regarding the Court's favorable ruling,
"We're pleased the Federal Court intelligently dissected the new law and plainly criticized it as an unconstitutional attempt to censor physicians. The Court's 30-page opinion is very thorough, well-situated to withstand any appeals. In the Order, the Court referred repeatedly to the declaration of PIC Physician Sanjay Verma, MD who expertly catalogued the State's continual flip flops on Covid science.
Dr. Verma explains in detail how the so-called “consensus” has developed and shifted, often within mere months, throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. (Verma Decl. ¶¶ 13-42.) He also explains how certain conclusions once considered to be within the scientific consensus were later proved to be false. (Id. ¶¶ 8-10.) Because of this unique context, the concept of “scientific consensus” as applied to COVID-19 is inherently flawed.
This is an important win and legal precedent for free speech.”
Please consider donating to PHYSICIANS FOR INFORMED CONSENT or becoming a member. Physicians for Informed Consent was one of the organizations who brought forward this lawsuit on AB2098. PERK would like to congratulate the brave doctor plaintiffs, organizations, as well as the great legal team for defending doctors right to give informed consent. All the doctors in California thank you. See the PIC Press release here and the NCLA PRESS RELEASE below.
Sincerely,
The PERK Team
On Jan. 25, 2023, US District Judge William Shubb ordered that plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction be granted in the case against AB 2098. The preliminary injunction temporarily halts the implementation of the law while the case is tried in court. Here is a copy of the judge’s order. The judge took issue with the vagueness of “contemporary scientific consensus” referred to in the law and found that, “Because the term “scientific consensus” is so ill defined, physician plaintiffs are unable to determine if their intended conduct contradicts the scientific consensus, and accordingly “what is prohibited by the law.”
