CA's Covid Misinformation Law Gets Curbstomped
Ca Couldn't Even Define Misinformation Being Trying to Ban It
The Video version of this is [HERE] if you’d rather watch.
The Audio only version should be available on your favorite podcast network.
On January 01 of this year it became illegal in California for doctors to spread "misinformation" related to Covid-19 thanks to Governor Newsolini and the CA Democratic Party's passing of AB 2098.
As of yesterday a District Judge has blocked the bill and it looks like it's going to go down in flames for being unconstitutionally vague. Because it is just that.
The people defending this bill, the top lawyers working on behalf of the State of California, weren't even able to articulate to the courts what constituted "permissible and impermissible speech" under the bill.
So doctors legally can't stray from orthodoxy and by the way that orthodoxy will be defined at a later date.
I suppose in channeling Justice Potter Stewart, nobody in California's ruling class can define "misinformation" but of course they'll know it when they see it.
Except when it benefits them to not see it.
Because AB 2098 itself contains "medical misinformation" by claiming that vaccines have been confirmed as "safe and effective" while ignoring that different patients have different medical issues and needs. It was hardly "safe and effective" for all of the young men who got myocarditis after taking the shot. Had those young men been warned of the real risks - as opposed to listening to doctors peddling a state sanctioned narrative - they could have been saved from the misinformation that costs their lives.
The bill itself also claims that those without the vaccine are 11x more likely to die from covid - another claim of medical misinformation only made possible by terrible math and worse statistics.
The very fact that the CDC so muddled how covid deaths are counted - such as changing what it means to "die of" or to "die with" covid when politically expedient - should have been enough to stop this nonsense bill at it's introduction.
That there has never been a separate category for "partially vaccinated" or a real, honest collecting and reporting of data related to this group and how it impacts the numbers is further proof that the "11 times" rhetoric present in this very bill is misinformation.
And that's the real problem for me - the absurdity and arrogance of the bill from the people who pushed it.
It's typical "rules for thee but not for me" nonsense.
California's legislature, including the absolute walnuts in the Assembly and Senate who represent my districts, all the way up to the Governor - predicated this asinine bill on the notion of "trusting the experts" and "consensus".
If ever there was a more vile word in science than "consensus" I've yet to find it.
Yet, these purveyors of authoritarianism wanted to strip the licenses of any doctors who dared to speak out of turn and challenge the ruling elite. They wanted to punish those who went against the "consensus".
But they don't believe in consensus. I offer a challenge to prove it.
Let us see them put that premise to the test in their own livelihoods.
I want to see a bill passed that bars anybody from public office if they support a law, rule change or government diktat that is deemed unconstitutional by the Courts.
If a high court, the experts in law for our example, end up striking down a law you support, you're done. You effectively "lose your license" to practice politics. If you're a lawyer you should also be disbarred.
We'll allow for things to make it through the legal system because things should be appealable but in clear cut cases - you're done. To spice it up, should the Supreme Court rule against a law you supported - you and all those who voted for it become financially liable for all of the legal costs incurred defending your illegal law.
I mean if we're going to play the game of "trust the experts" the least we should demand is that the people making the rules be forced to follow them.
Should the Courts ultimately slap down AB 2098 as illegal and unconstitutional (as was evident from the moment it was introduced), it would only be fitting for those who supported it to suffer similar consequences outlined in it.
What's good for the consensus demanding Goose after all.
I consider passing laws that violate our Constitution to be a greater threat to life and liberty than uttering something that cuts across the popular medical narrative. Especially when that popular narrative is quite literally funded by Big Pharma.
After all, you can get a second or third opinion if you don't trust your doctor. You can't get your rights back once the government has stolen them under false, misleading pretenses. Dare I say through dis and misinformation.
If these asshats want to play with fire it's time some of them got burned for their actions.