Doctors fed up with Californian Communism filed an August 1 lawsuit seeking to end the politicisation of medicine.

Iranian immigrant, M.D. Azadeh Khatib, Marilyn Singleton, M.D., and Do No Harm – a civil rights Medical Organisation – are taking on California’s medical board.

The legal pathway challenges legislation, and the affiliated bureaucracy, in a ground-breaking protest against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), “implicit bias” re-education.

DEI implicit bias training operates on the premises of Critical Race Theory’s [false] doctrines.

Chief of which is the racist assumption “all white people are racist,” simply because they’re white.

Implicit bias also takes up “racist-anti-racist,” hate-whitey, brainwashing concepts like “white fragility,” “white guilt,” and “white privilege.”

Another name for implicit bias, thrown around in academia, is “hidden prejudice,” or in Karl Marx lingo, a “false consciousness.”

The 13-page lawsuit states the plaintiffs, “do not want to be compelled to include discussion of implicit bias in the continuing medical education courses they teach.”

On the grounds, “the efficacy of implicit bias training in reducing disparities and negative outcomes in healthcare is controversial in the medical community and lacks evidence.”

Californian law “requiring the Medical Board of California to enforce the mandate that all continuing medical education courses include discussion of implicit bias,” breeches the first amendment, they argue.

Constitutionally, “the government cannot compel speakers to engage in discussions on subjects they prefer to remain silent about.”

Nor can, the trio added, “governments condition a speaker’s ability to offer courses for credit on the requirement that she espouses the government’s favoured view on a controversial topic.”

According to Dr. Khatib’s allegations, Californian law (since 2021) demands all licensed doctors “complete 50 hours of continuing medical education every two years.”

For a doctor to have their licence renewed, they must be Intersectionality approved.

The Medical Board weighs re-training, then decides on whether or not the doctor is “right” to be awarded re-accreditation.

Put succinctly, a doctor born with a lighter shade of melanin has to prove that being a Christian, heterosexual, “white,” or European makes them an oppressor. (As is assumed by the M.A.D, Oppressor/Oppressed Intersectional dichotomy.)

In order to be re-licensed, a Californian doctor has to submit to re-training only under a medical curriculum that “includes [the doctrines of] implicit bias.”

Curriculum must ‘include “examples of how implicit bias affects perceptions, and treatment decisions of physicians and surgeons, leading to [presumed] disparities in health outcomes.”

The training manuals also need to prove they advance the ideology.

Such courses have to ‘satisfy’ cultural, and political safety “requirements.”

Training has to feature strategies sufficient in “addressing how implicit biases in decision making may contribute to health care disparities,” – discrimination, racism, “homophobia,” you get the gist.

The medical board measures compliance on the grounds of “race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics,” or a combination of both.”

Arguing against the re-training requirements, the plaintiffs stated, “Even assuming sufficient evidence exists that implicit bias in healthcare is prevalent and results in disparate treatment outcomes, there is no evidence-based consensus that trainings intended to reduce implicit bias are effective.”

Implicit bias training actually has the reverse effect: “Evidence shows,” the lawsuit claims, “that implicit bias trainings can cause counterproductive anger, frustration, and resentment among those taking the trainings.”

Providing testimony, Dr. Azadeh Khatib explained how the law forces compelled speech.

She told the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), I “never imagined that escaping the oppression of her childhood, [would lead] to facing creeping collectivism, and unfree speech in America.”

The Doctor argues, “Mandating [courses] to include discussion of implicit bias prevents her from having a more robust and appropriate discussion of the topic. Instead, she is limited to only discussing the government’s preferred topic and viewpoint.”

Representing a broad mix of medical professionals, and relevant stakeholders, Do No Harm’s protest supported Dr. Khatib, and Dr. Singleton, saying, “At least one of Do No Harm’s members does not want to include discussion of implicit bias in the continuing medical education courses.

“This is,” they said, “because the requirements risk infecting healthcare decisions with divisive and discriminatory ideas.”

PLF Litigation director, Joshua Thompson explained to The Epoch Times, “The last thing we want a doctor performing an appendectomy or brain surgery to be doing is thinking, ‘hmmm, maybe I should be thinking about the race of this patient when I’m performing this medical function.

“Injecting race into the doctor-patient relationship like this can only produce bad results,” Thompson continued.

“The idea that we should be policing people’s inner thoughts and subjective feelings is unscientific. Hunches or other things have no place in medicine.”

“It’s nuts,” he concluded.

Epoch approached California’s Medical Board for comment, but they declined to make a statement.

Forced speech as the antithesis of free speech is not just isolated to Commie Cali’s Death to America Democrats.

During the repressive response to COVID-19 medical professionals were not just denied the right to speak, they were derided for offering a second opinion to the approved newspeak (also see here, here and here).

California’s purge of non-aligned thought is another dangerous step in the direction towards a purge of non-aligned thinkers.