Huge Victory for Doctors Fighting Biden Censorship

“AAPS can now pursue its claim against censorship by the Biden administration,” explained Jane Orient, M.D., the executive director for the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons.

The AAPS had sued three medical specialty boards after they threatened to take action against the board certifications of several physicians – solely for speaking out on medical controversies.

The threats, if carried out, could injure those physicians, as they need the certifications in order to practice their specialties.

But the punishments were over the physicians’ opinions on controversial issues, the organization reported.

Defendants in the case are the American Board of Internal Medicine, the American Board of Family Medicine, and the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Additionally, Joe Biden’s homeland security secretary, is a defendant because of the government’s participation in the alleged censorship.

It was the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that recently issued a decision that means the AAPS case can move forward.

“This influential court established the right to object in court to censorship of physicians’ speech on topics ranging from government COVID policies to abortion,” explained AAPS lawyer Andrew Schlafly.

The ruling held there is a constitutional “right to hear” that allows a sponsor of conferences, such as the AAPS Education Foundation to challenge censorship that chills presentations.

“This landmark ruling will be cited nationwide for decades to come,” Schlafly explained.

AAPS sued three boards for their “threatened actions against the board certifications of physicians because of speaking out on medical controversies.”

The Biden administration and its appointees, the pharmaceutical industry and the medical establishment long has promoted abortion as “health care,” when it in fact is the one medical procedure that is intended to destroy one of every two patients involved.

Further, the same interests promoted the experimental COVID shots mandated by both government and industry during the pandemic, shots that actually now have been proven to result in side effects up to and including death.

The ruling included a majority ruling from the 5th Circuit, plus a special concurrence from Judge James Ho, who explained the Constitution’s speech rights to those who insist on censoring those with views that differ from theirs.

“In America, we don’t fear disagreement – we embrace it. We persuade – we don’t punish. We engage in conversation – not cancellation,” he explained.

“We know how to disagree with one another without destroying one another. Or at least that’s how it’s supposed to work.”

Schlafly said, “With this landmark ruling in favor of the First Amendment, our country can end improper censorship of viewpoints,” Schlafly said.

Peter McCullough, M.D., a medical expert on the issue, explained, “Several medical credentialing boards instituted a COVID-19 Misinformation Policies in September of 2021 and have used them to censor and retaliate against academic and practicing physicians who performed research, clinical care, and presented their findings on the early treatment of acute COVID-19 and vaccine safety. The boards’ position is that they and the government agencies they agree with, hold agency over the truth. By establishing that power dynamic, member who disagree with them are spreading misinformation and can be convicted in closed panel meetings without the member being allowed to present their views based upon the data and evidence at hand.”

McCullough is an internist, cardiologist and epidemiologist holding degrees from Baylor University, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, University of Michigan, and Southern Methodist University.

He manages common infectious diseases as well as the cardiovascular complications of both the viral infection and the injuries developing after the COVID-19 vaccine in Dallas, Texas.

He’s been published in more than 1,000 publications and has nearly 700 citations in the National Library of Medicine.

And he’s testified multiple times in the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives and other legislative bodies.

In a column online, he explained the court ruling “also invalidated Galveston Local Rule 6, by which that federal district court has infringed on plaintiffs’ right to amend their lawsuits. The 5th Circuit agreed with AAPS that this district court rule is contrary to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and thus must be voided.”

Copyright 2024 WND News Center