Amicus Curiae Brief — Ryan Klaassen, et al., Applicants v. Trustees of Indiana University

Case No. 21A15

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

In re Ryan Klaassen, et al.,

Petitioners,

ON EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF INJUNCTION

To the Honorable Amy Coney Barrett

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and

Circuit Justice for the Seventh Circuit

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE

PHYSICIANS FOR INFORMED CONSENT

GREGORY J. GLASER

Counsel of Record

4399 Buckboard Drive #423

Copperopolis, CA 95228

Telephone: (925) 642-6651

greg@picphysicians.org

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

Physicians for Informed Consent

1

Physicians for Informed Consent ("Amicus") moves the Court for

leave to file an amicus brief in support of Petitioners’ Emergency

Application for Writ of Injunction. This amicus motion is unopposed.

In support of this motion, Amicus assert that the district court ruling

failed to apply strict scrutiny to Respondent’s infringement upon the

Petitioners’ fundamental right to informed consent and informed refusal in

vaccination, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Amicus request that

this motion to file the attached amicus brief be granted.

Amicus further requests to make this motion on 8½-by-11 inch

paper, and to do so without ten days’ advance notice to the parties. No

counsel for a party authored this motion or the proposed amicus brief in

whole or in part, and no person other than amicus, its members, or its

counsel made a monetary contribution to fund the motion or brief.

Dated: August 10, 2021

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Gregory J. Glaser

GREGORY J. GLASER

Counsel of Record

4399 Buckboard Drive #423

Copperopolis, CA 95228

Telephone: (925) 642-6651

greg@picphysicians.org

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

Physicians for Informed Consent

2

Case No. 21A15

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

In re Ryan Klaassen, et al.,

Petitioners,

ON EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF INJUNCTION

To the Honorable Amy Coney Barrett

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and

Circuit Justice for the Seventh Circuit

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE

PHYSICIANS FOR INFORMED CONSENT

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

GREGORY J. GLASER

Counsel of Record

4399 Buckboard Drive #423

Copperopolis, CA 95228

Telephone: (925) 642-6651

greg@picphysicians.org

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

Physicians for Informed Consent

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page #

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. I

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. I-IV

IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ................................................. 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................................................................2

ARGUMENT ..............................................................................................................2

A.

Informed consent/refusal in vaccination is a fundamental right

triggering strict scrutiny. ......................................................................2

B.

There is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines prevent the spread

of SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19, and in fact there is evidence to the

contrary. ................................................................................................6

C.

Those previously infected with COVID-19 should have at least

the same rights as those vaccinated for COVID-19............................ 10

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 13

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................... 14

i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Federal Cases

Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Botsford,

141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891) ..................................................... 3, 4

Washington v. Harper,

494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990) ....................................................... 4

Other Authorities

American Medical Association (2021). AMA Principles of

Medical Ethics: I, II, V, VIII. Informed Consent.

https://www.ama-assn.org/deliveringcare/ethics/informed-consent. ............................................. 3

Annas, G., et al. Jacobson v. Massachusetts: It’s Not Your

Great-Great-Grandfather’s Public Health Law, 95 AM. J.

PUB. HEALTH 581, 588 (2005).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/

............................................................................................4, 5

Brown CM, Vostok J, Johnson H, et al. Outbreak of SARS-CoV2 Infections, Including COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough

Infections, Associated with Large Public Gatherings —

Barnstable County, Massachusetts, July 2021. MMWR Morb

Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:10591062. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm703

1e2.htm. ................................................................................. 8

CDC. Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully

Vaccinated People. Covid-19, Vaccines. Updated July 28,

2021. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html. ................... 8

Covid-19 in Iceland – Statistics. Number of vaccinated

individuals among domestic infections – Iceland.

https://www.covid.is/data (accessed August 9, 2021). ..........9

ii

Ethical issues with vaccination in obstetrics and gynecology.

(2021) Committee Opinion No. 829. American College of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol

2021;138:e16–23. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinicalguidance/committee-opinion/articles/2021/07/ethicalissues-with-vaccination-in-obstetrics-and-gynecology ........ 3

Larsen, K. 'Physicians, nurses, ancillary staff': How hundreds of

SFGH and UCSF staff got infected with COVID. ABC 7 News

(July 30, 2021). https://abc7news.com/coronavirusoutbreak-san-francisco-general-hospital-sf-coviducsf/10920805/ ..................................................................... 9

Ioannidis, JPA. Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred

from seroprevalence data. Bulletin of the World Health

Organization. 2020 Oct 14 [cited 2021 Apr

16]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC79479

34/ ........................................................................................ 12

Oran DP, Topol EJ. The proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections

that are asymptomatic: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med.

2021 May;174(5):655-62. https://doi.org/10.7326/M206976. ..................................................................................... 12

Physicians for Informed Consent. Janssen (Johnson &

Johnson) COVID-19 Vaccine: Short-Term Efficacy & Safety

Data. May

2021. https://www.physiciansforinformedconsent.org/COVI

D-19-vaccines ................................................................... 7, 10

Physicians for Informed Consent. Moderna COVID-19 vaccine:

short-term efficacy and safety data. Apr

2021. https://www.physiciansforinformedconsent.org/COVI

D-19-vaccines. ........................................................................7

Physicians for Informed Consent. Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19

vaccine: short-term efficacy and safety data. Jun

2021. https://www.physiciansforinformedconsent.org/COVI

D-19-vaccines .........................................................................7

iii

Reese H, Iuliano AD, Patel NN, Garg S, Kim L, Silk BJ, Hall AJ,

Fry A, Reed C. Estimated incidence of coronavirus disease

2019 (COVID-19) illness and hospitalization—United States,

February–September 2020. Clin Infect Dis. 2020; Nov

25;ciaa1780. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1780. .......... 12

Rosenberg, D. Natural infection vs vaccination: which gives

more protection? Israel National News (July 13, 2021).

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309

762. ....................................................................................... 12

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Vaccines and Related

Biological Products Advisory Committee. FDA briefing

document: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccines and

Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting:

December 10,

2020. https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download. .... 6, 7

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Vaccines and Related

Biological Products Advisory Committee. FDA briefing

document: Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccines and

Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting:

December 17,

2020. https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download. ........7

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Vaccines and Related

Biological Products Advisory Committee. FDA briefing

document: Janssen Ad26.COV2.S vaccine for the prevention

of COVID-19. Vaccines and Related Biological Products

Advisory Committee Meeting: February 26,

2021. https://www.fda.gov/media/146217/download......7, 11

Worldometer. Coronavirus: United

States. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country

/us/. ...................................................................................... 12

iv

Case No. 21A15

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

In re Ryan Klaassen, et al.,

Petitioners.

ON EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF INJUNCTION

AMICUS BRIEF RE INFORMED CONSENT

IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

Amicus Curiae is Physicians for Informed Consent (“PIC”), a

501(c)(3) educational nonprofit organization focused on science and

statistics. PIC delivers data on infectious diseases and vaccines, and unites

doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals, attorneys, and families who

support voluntary vaccination. In addition, its Coalition for Informed

Consent consists of about 300 U.S. and international organizations.

This brief is submitted pursuant to leave requested by the unopposed

accompanying motion. The parties have consented to this request.

1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Respondents’ vaccine mandate would not pass strict scrutiny for

scientific reasons.

There is no evidence that any of the currently available EUA COVID19 vaccines prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19, and in fact

there is evidence that the spread of SARS-CoV-2 occurs in spite of

vaccination. Therefore, there is no scientific justification to segregate

vaccinated and unvaccinated people. This is particularly important in light

of super precedent Brown v. Board prohibiting separate but equal

schooling.

There is compelling evidence that previous SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19

infection is more effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19

infection than COVID-19 vaccines. Therefore, those previously infected

with COVID-19 should have at least the same rights as those vaccinated for

COVID-19.

ARGUMENT

A. Informed consent/refusal in vaccination is a fundamental

right triggering strict scrutiny.

Universally recognized by physicians, informed consent/refusal in

vaccination is a fundamental right, as it is essential to the patient’s bodily

2

integrity. See e.g.,

“Informed consent to medical treatment is fundamental in both

ethics and law. Patients have the right to receive information

and ask questions about recommended treatments so that they

can make well-considered decisions about care. Successful

communication in the patient-physician relationship fosters

trust and supports shared decision making.” Citation: American

Medical Association (2021). AMA Principles of Medical Ethics:

I, II, V, VIII. Informed Consent. https://www.amaassn.org/delivering-care/ethics/informed-consent.

“Informed consent is a core component of the ethical clinical

relationship. As with all forms of medical therapy, informed

consent should precede vaccination administration…. If the

patient declines, this informed refusal of recommended

vaccination should be respected…. Patients who decline

vaccination should continue to be supported with appropriate

care options that honor their autonomous choices.” Citation:

Ethical issues with vaccination in obstetrics and gynecology.

(2021) Committee Opinion No. 829. American College of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2021;138:e16–

23. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinicalguidance/committee-opinion/articles/2021/07/ethical-issueswith-vaccination-in-obstetrics-and-gynecology.

Safeguarding informed consent/refusal is indeed essential to a

successful doctor-patient relationship. Vaccination carries risk of harm, and

is an invasive medical procedure. For a state or federally funded institution

to engage in medical bulling or coerce this medical procedure upon patients

is a direct infringement upon the rights of bodily integrity and privacy.

The fundamental right of bodily integrity has been recognized in the

United States. As this Supreme Court found in Union Pac. Ry. Co. v.

3

Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), "No right is held more sacred, or is more

carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to

the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or

interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of

law." See also Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990) (“The

forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person's body

represents a substantial interference with that person's liberty.")

Applying Jacobson v. Massachusetts to the modern day, leading

scholars at Boston University George Annas, Wendy Mariner, and Leonard

Glantz wrote wisely:

Public health programs that are based on force are a relic of the

19th century; 21st century public health depends on good

science, good communication, and trust in public health

officials to tell the truth. In each of these spheres, constitutional

rights are the ally rather than the enemy of public health.

Preserving the public’s health in the 21st century requires

preserving respect for personal liberty.

Even in an emergency, when there is a rapidly spreading

contagious disease and an effective vaccine, the state is not

permitted to forcibly vaccinate or medicate anyone. The

constitutional alternative is to segregate infected and exposed

people separately [allowing self-quarantine] to prevent them

from transmitting the disease to others.

While [the Supreme Court] has not decided a case that involved

isolation or quarantine for disease, it has held that civil

commitment for mental illness is unconstitutional unless a

judge determines the person is dangerous by reason of a mental

illness [citations omitted]. Assuming, as most scholars do, that

4

the law governing commitment to a mental institution also

applies to involuntary confinement for contagious diseases, the

government would have the burden of proving, by "clear and

convincing evidence," that the individual actually has, or has

been exposed to, a contagious disease and is likely to transmit

the disease to others if not confined [citations omitted].

In cases that involve civil commitment or involuntary

hospitalization for mental illness, the Court has required the

state to prove—by clear and convincing evidence—that a person

is mentally ill and that the illness renders the person dangerous

to others. Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992), Carey v.

Population Services Intl, 431 U.S. 678 (1977), O’Connor v.

Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 580 (1975), Addington v. Texas, 441

U.S. 418, 425 (1979), Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 494 (1980).

When the HIV epidemic began in 1981, these principles from

the 1970s reminded legislators at both the state and federal

levels that people could not be involuntarily detained simply

because they had HIV infection. Only a few individuals who

imminently threatened to infect other people by deliberate or

uncontrollable behavior would meet the constitutional test.

More recently, the same approach has been used by lower

courts in some cases that involved people who had active,

contagious tuberculosis. City of Newark v. JS, 279 N.J. Super.

178 (1993). Green v. Edwards, 164 W.Va. 326 (1980).

Jacobson v. Massachusetts: It’s Not Your Great-Great-Grandfather’s

Public Health Law, 95 AM. J. PUB. HEALTH 581, 588 (2005).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/.

5

B. There is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines prevent the

spread of SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19, and in fact there is evidence

to the contrary.

Government statements confirm there is no evidence that COVID-19

vaccines prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19.

Therefore, there is no scientific justification to segregate between

vaccinated and unvaccinated people.1 Clinical trials for the PfizerBioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccines

were not designed to observe asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2 or

the effect of the vaccine on the spread (transmission) of COVID-19.

Consequently, in its briefing document for each vaccine, the U.S. Food and

Drug Administration (FDA) states that “it is possible that asymptomatic

infections may not be prevented as effectively as symptomatic infections”

and “data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against transmission

of SARS-CoV-2 from individuals who are infected despite vaccination.”

Furthermore, “additional evaluations including data from clinical trials and

from vaccine use post-authorization will be needed to assess the effect of

the vaccine in preventing virus shedding and transmission, in particular in

individuals with asymptomatic infection.” Citations:

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Vaccines and Related

Biological Products Advisory Committee. FDA briefing

document: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccines and

Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting:

6

December 10,

2020. https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download.

2. Physicians for Informed Consent. Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19

vaccine: short-term efficacy and safety data. Jun

2021. https://www.physiciansforinformedconsent.org/COVID19-vaccines.

3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Vaccines and Related

Biological Products Advisory Committee. FDA briefing

document: Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccines and Related

Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting: December 17,

2020. https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download.

4. Physicians for Informed Consent. Moderna COVID-19 vaccine:

short-term efficacy and safety data. Apr

2021. https://www.physiciansforinformedconsent.org/COVID19-vaccines.

5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Vaccines and Related

Biological Products Advisory Committee. FDA briefing

document: Janssen Ad26.COV2.S vaccine for the prevention of

COVID-19. Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory

Committee Meeting: February 26,

2021. https://www.fda.gov/media/146217/download.

6. Physicians for Informed Consent. Janssen (Johnson &

Johnson) COVID-19 Vaccine: Short-Term Efficacy & Safety

Data. May

2021. https://www.physiciansforinformedconsent.org/COVID19-vaccines.

This is particularly important in light of super precedent Brown v.

Board prohibiting separate but equal schooling.

1

7

Government statements confirm that COVID-19 vaccines do not

prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19, and that both

vaccinated and unvaccinated persons equally transmit the virus.

In July 2021, in a Barnstable County town in Massachusetts,

469 COVID-19 cases were identified among Massachusetts residents

who had traveled to the town and 346 (74%) occurred in fully

vaccinated persons. Of the five hospitalized cases, four were

vaccinated. The CDC also concluded, “Cycle threshold values were

similar among specimens from patients who were fully vaccinated

and those who were not,” which means vaccinated and unvaccinated

persons can equally spread SARS-CoV-2 and there is no scientific

basis for discrimination based on vaccination status. Another CDC

statement highlighting this, “…preliminary evidence suggests that

fully vaccinated people who do become infected with the Delta variant

can spread the virus to others."2

Brown CM, Vostok J, Johnson H, et al. Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2

Infections, Including COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections,

Associated with Large Public Gatherings — Barnstable County,

Massachusetts, July 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:10591062. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm.

CDC. Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated

People. Covid-19, Vaccines. Updated July 28, 2021.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinatedguidance.html.

2

8

Other outbreaks have similarly shown that vaccinated persons

can become infected. "More staff are getting COVID than we saw

before, and it's mostly vaccinated staff. And that's just because of the

easing of restrictions," said Dr. Lukejohn Day, the Chief Medical

Officer of San Francisco General Hospital. Larsen, K. 'Physicians,

nurses, ancillary staff': How hundreds of SFGH and UCSF staff got

infected with COVID. ABC 7 News (July 30,

2021). https://abc7news.com/coronavirus-outbreak-san-franciscogeneral-hospital-sf-covid-ucsf/10920805/ ("We are seeing it among

physicians, nurses, ancillary staff, we sort of are seeing that across the

board.")

In Iceland where mostly the same vaccines that are available in

the US are being used, most of the current SARS-CoV-2 infections are

occurring among fully vaccinated persons. See Covid-19 in Iceland –

Statistics. Number of vaccinated individuals among domestic

infections – Iceland. https://www.covid.is/data (accessed August 9,

2021).

9

C. Those previously infected with COVID-19 should have at least

the same rights as those vaccinated for COVID-19.

There is evidence that previous SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 infection is

more effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 infection than

COVID-19 vaccines. Therefore, those previously infected with COVID-19

should have at least the same rights as those vaccinated for COVID-19.

The Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial

included over 2,000 subjects that had contracted SARS-CoV-2 before the

study. The trial recorded the incidence of COVID-19 in that unvaccinated

group at least 28 days after the vaccination of the other subjects in the

study. The COVID-19 incidence of the unvaccinated group with prior SARSCoV-2 infection was 0.1% (2/2,021), whereas the COVID-19 incidence of

vaccinated subjects was 0.59% (113/19,306). These data suggest that there

are six times more cases of COVID-19 in vaccinated subjects than in

unvaccinated subjects previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. This also

means that an unvaccinated person previously infected with SARS-CoV-2

has 99.9% chance of being protected from a repeat infection. Citations:

1. Physicians for Informed Consent. Janssen (Johnson &

Johnson) COVID-19 Vaccine: Short-Term Efficacy & Safety

Data. May

2021. https://www.physiciansforinformedconsent.org/COVI

D-19-vaccines.

10

2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Vaccines and Related

Biological Products Advisory Committee. FDA briefing

document: Janssen Ad26.COV2.S vaccine for the prevention

of COVID-19. Vaccines and Related Biological Products

Advisory Committee Meeting: February 26, 2021. Table 14:

vaccine efficacy of first occurrence of moderate to

severe/critical COVID-19, including non-centrally confirmed

cases, with onset at least 14 or at least 28 days after

vaccination, by baseline SARS-CoV-2 status, per protocol set;

30. https://www.fda.gov/media/146217/download.

Of note, as of July 1, 2021, there have been 177.4 million SARS-CoV-2

infections in the U.S., which is 53.8% of the U.S. population. Citation to

Statistical Analysis of the Frequency of SARS-CoV-2 Infections in the

United States:

A Stanford University systematic review that included 69

antibody studies estimated that the COVID-19 infection fatality

rate (IFR) in the United States ranges from 0.3% to 0.4%.a Data

analysis herein uses the midpoint of that range, 0.35%. An IFR

of 0.35% is also supported by an analysis published in Clinical

Infectious Diseases that estimated that there were 44.8 million

symptomatic COVID-19 illnesses in February–September

2020.b Additionally, since 33% of all SARS-CoV-2 infections are

asymptomatic,c there were an estimated 66.9 million (44.8

million/[100%-33%]) total number of SARS-CoV-2 infections in

that time period. There were also 213,000 COVID-19 deaths in

February–September 2020,d resulting in a COVID-19 IFR of

0.32% (213,000/66.9 million). As of July 1, 2021, there have

been about 621,000 COVID-19 deaths in the U.S.d As the

COVID-19 IFR is about 0.35%, as of July 1, 2021 there have

been about 177.4 million SARS-CoV-2 infections

(621,000/0.35%), which is 53.8% of the population of the U.S.

(330 million).

11

a Ioannidis, JPA. Infection fatality rate of COVID-19

inferred from seroprevalence data. Bulletin of the World

Health Organization. 2020 Oct 14 [cited 2021 Apr

16]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC794

7934/

b Reese H, Iuliano AD, Patel NN, Garg S, Kim L, Silk BJ,

Hall AJ, Fry A, Reed C. Estimated incidence of

coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) illness and

hospitalization—United States, February–September

2020. Clin Infect Dis. 2020; Nov

25;ciaa1780. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1780.

c Oran DP, Topol EJ. The proportion of SARS-CoV-2

infections that are asymptomatic: a systematic review.

Ann Intern Med. 2021 May;174(5):65562. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-6976.

d Worldometer. Coronavirus: United

States. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coun

try/us/.

In Israel, where only the Pfizer vaccine was used, new data indicate

that nearly 40% of new COVID-19 patients were vaccinated - compared to

just 1% who had been infected previously. Rosenberg, D. Natural infection

vs vaccination: which gives more protection? Israel National News (July 13,

2021). https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762.

Separating people depending on their COVID-19 vaccination status is

unscientific, and not equal. We urge the Court to reject the vaccine mandate

and instead uphold the equal protection of law that treats Americans the

same, regardless of their vaccination status.

12

CONCLUSION

Applying strict scrutiny, the Court should find Respondent’s vaccine

mandate fails to advance a compelling government interest that is narrowly

tailored to protect public health.

Dated: August 10, 2021

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Gregory J. Glaser

GREGORY J. GLASER

Counsel of Record

4399 Buckboard Drive #423

Copperopolis, CA 95228

Telephone: (925) 642-6651

greg@picphysicians.org

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

Physicians for Informed Consent

13

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

This brief is in compliance with the 6,500 word limit, as permitted by

FRAP 32(a)(7)(B), exclusive of items exempt under FRAP 32(f). An

electronic word count performed on the final version of the text reported

2,264 words.

Dated: August 10, 2021

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Gregory J. Glaser

GREGORY J. GLASER

Counsel of Record

4399 Buckboard Drive #423

Copperopolis, CA 95228

Telephone: (925) 642-6651

greg@picphysicians.org

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

Physicians for Informed Consent

14