these laws and state that doctors may not be required to tell lies to patients.

That has to do with the federal level as in "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . ."

That doesn't apply at the state level, and these laws are state laws.

I just don't understand why the AMA doesn't stand up every single time one of these laws is passed and say that the Hippocratic Oath does not permit them to lie to patients, pure and simple. Which would hopefully lead to a court challenge. And if it were to go all the way to the Supreme Court, and they uphold those dreadful laws, doctors across the country should simply refuse to treat any patients other than those in the most dire circumstance. Which would also violate the Hippocratic Oath, but it might bring home to these idiots how stupid it is to have doctors lie to patients.

Not saying 'First Amendment' is a good argument here, only pointing out this detail.

State Governments aren't allowed to make laws that violate the Constitution any more than the Feds can. I mean, they can TRY but they're likely to be challenged and repealed.

"Congress shall make no law". Which means states can make such laws. Just as First Amendment protection doesn't apply if your employer says you can't talk about things related to your job or company. The First Amendment doesn't apply.

So it really isn't a First Amendment issue, but a medical issue.

There was a time when people were routinely not told of a cancer diagnosis, or various other terminal diseases. I suppose that was at least in part because so little could be done about them. The assumption was that the doctor knew best, and so he would pick and choose what to tell the patient. Times and attitudes changed, and we now expect patients to be fully involved with and engaged in their treatment. People are given as much information as possible most of the time. The expectation is that the information is as complete and accurate as is possible.

Which is what doctors need to push back with. Otherwise, the next thing we know is states will be requiring pediatricians to repeat anti-vaccination nonsense before giving children vaccines.

Again, not a First Amendment issue, but one of allowing doctors to practice medicine as they've been trained.

Of course you're correct that the BoR does say 'Congress' ... but ... the Law of the Land has changed over time.

For a decent history of how it has evolved, here's a well-written history:
http://faculty.smu.edu/jkobylka/supremecourt/Nationalization_BoRs.pdf

Basically, the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to mean that States also have to adhere to the Constitution.

A relevant passage on the 1A portion of this process:

have sued using the 1st Amendment defense?

Not sure how the 1st really applies. Obviously there's all kinds of exceptions carved into our 1A rights ... people acting in their professional capacities/at work have all kinds of restrictions on 'what they can say legally' placed upon them. I don't think you could reasonably argue 'you can't make Doctors say this' ... based on the 1A, basically. Which is what I thought you were arguing from the start as well

In many ways it'd be fundamentally similar to a cop arguing he doesn't have to read anyone their Miranda Rights "Because 1st Amendment!". Yeah ... no.

That said, States cannot violate the 1A any more than the Feds can, as described in the document I shared in my last post. That was my main point from the start.