Last updated on August 9th, 2023 at 09:02 am
The California Legislature is moving forward with legislation, AB 2223, that the author (Democrat Assembly member Buffy Wicks) states is designed to prevent any investigation or prosecution of a woman (called a “birthing person” in California’s woke parlance) for a pregnancy-related outcome. Critics (including this IFamNews author) contend that the imprecise language of the legislation opens the door to legalizing infanticide. The bill is a product of Governor Gavin Newsom’s “California Future Of Abortion Council,” part of a package of legislation designed to firmly cement California as an “abortion sanctuary” in anticipation of a US Supreme Court ruling to overturn or substantially scale back its decades-old rulings that created a federal right to abortion.
The pro-life/pro-abortion line of debate is well established and I won’t review the many reasons why it is unwise to expand the “right” to abortion in California. But AB 2223 goes well beyond this familiar context and contains language that raises many red flags, covering not only circumstances when an unborn child in the womb is killed by abortion, but also children who have been born alive and subsequently experience a “perinatal death.”
The killing of a child that has been born alive is infanticide. This is murder in every state in the union. Is California really on the verge of legalizing infanticide? Notwithstanding the repeated statements of the author of the legislation to the contrary and the findings of so-called media “fact checkers,” the imprecise language of the legislation certainly opens the door to this possibility. Let’s examine.
As introduced, the provision of AB 2223 that causes concern is in Section 7a of the bill: “Notwithstanding any other law, a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise deprived of their rights under this article, based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death.”
What is a “perinatal death?” The bill does not say, so we are left with other definitions for guidance. Medical definitions vary, but all of them include the death of newborns up to seven days after birth and some – such as that contained in the California Welfare & Institutions Code – as long as a month.
When a firestorm of protest erupted about the implications of AB 2223, the author went into damage control to assure people that the “perinatal death” language of the legislation would only impact babies who died after birth of natural causes related to the pregnancy. She pointed to two cases where women were initially charged with criminal neglect for causing their children to be stillborn from drug abuse during the pregnancy.
But Wicks’ reliance on these two cases is misplaced and unpersuasive. As noted above, AB 2223 covers “stillbirth” as a separate cause from “perinatal death.”
At a recent hearing of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, the author amended her legislation seeking to quell the “infanticide” debate by clarifying that the bill only applied to a perinatal death “due to a pregnancy-related cause.”
However, many legal observers find this “clarification” to be anything but clarifying. The California Catholic Conference had submitted language to Assembly member Wicks and her staff “to protect innocent newborns and allow coroners to investigate infant deaths.” Wicks refused the amendment, leading the Bishop’s Conference to remark, “we are incredibly disappointed that the imprecise language remains.”
Wicks and her pro-abortion allies have mounted a public relations counter-offensive, using their many supporters in the media to run cover. Recent “fact check” articles by outfits such as PolitiFact, Reuters, the Sacramento Bee and the Associated Press flatly declare that concerns about infanticide are “false.” Of note, however, even the leftwing media must acknowledge that because the legislation fails to define “perinatal death,” it will be up to a future court decision to determine the actual scope of AB 2223.
Probably no judge would say that AB 2223 absolves anyone of the intentional killing of an otherwise healthy newborn baby. But what about an unhealthy baby? Does a “perinatal death due to a pregnancy-related cause” allow the mother and her caregivers to refuse to provide needed care to a baby with a disability, deformity or underlying medical condition? Can such a child be killed – by neglect or otherwise – in the name of making California an “abortion sanctuary” state?
It’s up to the California Legislature to deal with this issue because Assemblywoman Wicks has refused the entreaties of people of good will to do so. Unfortunately, there is no indication that they will address this highly-concerning issue. Yesterday AB 2223 was heard by the Assembly Health Committee. Thousands of Californians traveled to Sacramento to oppose the legislation. Assembly member Wicks once again refused to adopt language to ensure that no baby born alive in California could be killed after birth. Democrats – who constitute a super-majority of the Legislature – closed ranks to support the abortion industry and the bill passed the Health Committee on a straight party-line vote. Absent a surprise development, it will likely soon pass the full Assembly, the Senate and then be signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom.
So the answer to the question is “Yes.” California really is on the verge of legalizing infanticide.
Gavin Newsom fancies himself as America’s future president. He says that the California he is building is a model for the nation. Take him at his word. It’s a model all right – a model of pure evil.