Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Misinformation Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel advances amended bill targeting deliberately false health claims by licensed professionals after contentious public testimony
Summary
A1884, which would allow disciplinary action against licensed health professionals who deliberately disseminate false health information, drew extensive public opposition and debate about vagueness and free speech; the committee removed language referencing 'contemporary scientific consensus' before releasing the bill.
The Health Committee released A1884 as amended after a lengthy hearing that featured testimony from physicians, professional groups and dozens of public commenters who warned the bill could chill clinical judgment and free speech.
Sponsor and committee chair Chairman Conaway said the bill seeks to protect public health by providing a mechanism to hold licensed professionals accountable when they deliberately spread false health claims that harm the public. He proposed striking language referencing "contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus" and the "standard of care" from the definition of misinformation to reduce vagueness.
Multiple witnesses opposed the bill. Dr. Renee Kohanski, a board‑certified psychiatrist testifying for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, said the bill risks stifling medical innovation and said boards already have mechanisms to discipline improper conduct. "Physicians need to be completely free to engage in unencumbered conversation with their patients regarding what treatment options are best," Kohanski testified. John Tomicky of the League of American Families and many commenters echoed concerns that definitions are vague and enforcement could be inconsistent.
Public commenters described personal experiences and deep distrust in the proposed enforcement language. Several nurses and residents recounted frustration with COVID‑era restrictions and said the bill could prevent clinicians from discussing off‑label or alternative therapies. Many urged defeat or major narrowing of the proposal.
Committee members questioned how to prove malicious intent, who would set medical consensus, and whether the bill duplicates existing board disciplinary procedures or exposes the state to constitutional challenge. Assemblyman Azaridi and Assemblyman Rump cited constitutional and vagueness concerns and voted against the amendment or the motion to release; other members supported the sponsor’s narrowing amendment and the committee ultimately released A1884 as amended.
What’s next: The committee adopted an amendment to remove language referencing "contemporary scientific consensus" and "contrary to the standard of care" and released the bill for further consideration; supporters said legal challenges are likely and the measure could be refined in later stages.
Notes: The hearing included substantial public comment and multiple references to California's experience with a similar measure, as well as appeals to preserve the doctor‑patient relationship.
