Heads up folks!
While they have you distracted with Ukraine, COVID, Biden, and every other bit of nonsense happening right now in our world, they are trying to pass a Bill in California that will LITERALLY allow infanticide.
Infanticide = legally killing babies.
Think I’m being overly dramatic?
I’m not.
And I’ll prove it.
A man is going viral today for posting a video where he says “California Wants To Kill My Son”.
Gotta admit, that’s a catchy title.
So I watched it and you can too right here on Rumble:
But…is it true?
Well, here’s the full text of AB 2223:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Reproductive justice is a framework created by Black women in 1994 to address the intersectional and multifactored issues that women of color and their families face in society.(b) Reproductive justice is the human right to control our bodies, sexuality, gender, work, and reproduction. That right can only be achieved when all people, particularly women and girls, have the complete economic, social, and political power and resources to make healthy decisions about their bodies, families, and communities in all areas of their lives. At the core of reproductive justice is the belief in the right to bodily autonomy, the right to have children, the right to not have children, and the right to parent the children we have with dignity and respect in safe and sustainable communities.(c) A critical part of realizing reproductive justice for people in California is clarifying that there shall be no civil and criminal penalties for people’s actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcomes.(d) Across the country, people have been criminally prosecuted for having miscarriages or stillbirths or for self-managing an abortion. California has not been exempt. Despite clear law that ending or losing a pregnancy is not a crime, police have investigated and prosecutors have charged people with homicide for pregnancy losses.(e) Also across the country, pregnant people are under threat of civil penalties for their actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcomes and civil penalties have been threatened against people who aid or assist pregnant people in exercising their rights.(f) Pregnancies can end in a range of outcomes. Nationwide, as many as one in five known pregnancies end in miscarriage. In California, as many as 2,365 pregnancies per year end in stillbirth, meaning perinatal loss after 20 weeks gestation. Many pregnancy losses have no known explanation.(g) People also need to end pregnancies by abortion, including self-managed abortion, which means ending one’s own pregnancy outside of the medical system.(h) Every Californian should have the right to feel secure that they can seek medical assistance during pregnancy without fear of civil or criminal liability.(i) The threat of criminal prosecution of pregnancy outcomes is partly traceable to out-of-date provisions that give coroners a duty to investigate certain abortions and pregnancy losses. Based on these provisions, health care providers and institutions report people to law enforcement for pregnancy losses, leading to harmful investigations and even unlawful prosecutions.(j) Civil and criminal penalties imposed on pregnant people is a critical issue for Black, Indigenous, and other people of color, who experience adverse pregnancy outcomes as a result of systemic racial inequities and are more likely to be under scrutiny of state systems like child welfare or immigration.(k) The threat of criminal prosecutions or civil penalties on pregnant people through child welfare, immigration, housing, or other legal systems has a harmful effect on individual and public health. When a person fears state action being taken against them related to their pregnancy, they are less likely to seek medical care when they need it. If they do seek care, punishing them for actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcomes interferes with professional care and endangers the relationship between providers and patients.(l) That is why major medical groups like the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Public Health Association oppose civil and criminal penalties for actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcomes.SEC. 2.
Section 27491 of the Government Code is amended to read:
27491.
It shall be the duty of the coroner to inquire into and determine the circumstances, manner, and cause of all violent, sudden, or unusual deaths; unattended deaths; deaths where the deceased has not been attended by either a physician or a registered nurse, who is a member of a hospice care interdisciplinary team, as defined by subdivision (g) of Section 1746 of the Health and Safety Code in the 20 days before death; known or suspected homicide, suicide, or accidental poisoning; deaths known or suspected as resulting in whole or in part from or related to accident or injury either old or recent; deaths due to drowning, fire, hanging, gunshot, stabbing, cutting, exposure, starvation, acute alcoholism, drug addiction, strangulation, aspiration, or where the suspected cause of death is sudden infant death syndrome; death in whole or in part occasioned by criminal means; deaths associated with a known or alleged rape or crime against nature; rape; deaths in prison or while under sentence; deaths known or suspected as due to contagious disease and constituting a public hazard; deaths from occupational diseases or occupational hazards; deaths of patients in state hospitals serving the mentally disordered and operated by the State Department of State Hospitals; deaths of patients in state hospitals serving the developmentally disabled and operated by the State Department of Developmental Services; deaths under circumstances that afford a reasonable ground to suspect that the death was caused by the criminal act of another; and any deaths reported by physicians or other persons having knowledge of death for inquiry by coroner. Inquiry pursuant to this section does not include those investigative functions usually performed by other law enforcement agencies.(a) If the coroner conducts an inquiry pursuant to this section, the coroner or a deputy shall personally sign the certificate of death. If the death occurred in a state hospital, the coroner shall forward a copy of the report to the state agency responsible for the state hospital.(b) The coroner shall have discretion to determine the extent of inquiry to be made into any death occurring under natural circumstances and falling within the provisions of this section, and if inquiry determines that the physician of record has sufficient knowledge to reasonably state the cause of a death occurring under natural circumstances, the coroner may authorize that physician to sign the certificate of death.(c) For the purpose of inquiry, the coroner shall have the right to exhume the body of a deceased person when necessary to discharge the responsibilities set forth in this section.(d) A funeral director, physician, or other person who has charge of a deceased person’s body, when death occurred as a result of any of the causes or circumstances described in this section, shall immediately notify the coroner. A person who does not notify the coroner as required by this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.SEC. 3.
Section 103000 of the Health and Safety Code is repealed.SEC. 4.
Section 103005 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
103005.
(a) The coroner shall, within three days after examination of the fetus, state on the certificate of fetal death the time of fetal death, the direct causes of the fetal death, the conditions, if any, that gave rise to these causes, and other medical and health section data as may be required on the certificate, and shall sign the certificate in attest to these facts. The coroner shall, within three days after examining the body, deliver the death certificate to the attending funeral director.(b) This section shall not be used to establish, bring, or support a criminal prosecution or civil cause of action seeking damages against any person, whether or not they were the person who was pregnant with the fetus. Through its courts and statutes and under its Constitution, California protects the right to reproductive privacy, and it is the intent of the Legislature to reaffirm these protections.SEC. 5.
Section 123462 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:123462.
The Legislature finds and declares that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy with respect to personal reproductive decisions, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care. Accordingly, it is the public policy of the State of California that:(a) Every individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse birth control.(b) Every individual has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child or to choose to have and to obtain an abortion, except as specifically limited by this article.(c) The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s fundamental right to choose to bear a child or to choose to have and to obtain an abortion, except as specifically permitted by this article.SEC. 6.
Section 123466 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:123466.
The state shall not deny or interfere with a pregnant person’s right to choose or obtain an abortion prior to viability of the fetus, or when the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant person.SEC. 7.
Section 123467 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:123467.
(a) Notwithstanding any other law, a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise deprived of their rights, 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. death due to a pregnancy-related cause.(b) A person who aids or assists a pregnant person in exercising their rights under this article shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise be deprived of their rights, based solely on their actions to aid or assist a pregnant person in exercising their rights under this article with the pregnant person’s voluntary consent.SEC. 8.
Section 123468 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:123468.
The performance of an abortion is unauthorized if performed by someone other than the pregnant person and if either of the following is true:(a) The person performing the abortion is not a health care provider authorized to perform an abortion pursuant to Section 2253 of the Business and Professions Code.(b) The abortion is performed on a viable fetus, and both of the following are established:(1) In the good faith medical judgment of the physician, the fetus was viable.(2) In the good faith medical judgment of the physician, continuation of the pregnancy posed no risk to life or health of the pregnant person.
So, what’s the short story?
The short story is the Bill seeks to eliminate criminal liability for any “perinatal death”.
Ok, so what does “perinatal” mean?
That’s where it gets interesting…because a word already exists for “birth and before” and that word is “prenatal”. See definition below:
So the most obvious word you would use is prenatal….unless….you specifically wanted to include the time period AFTER birth.
Sometimes days or weeks after birth!
That word its “perinatal”.
Take a look at the definitions:
Oh my…
Seems pretty clear to me!
Want to know how else I know it’s true?
FactCheck.org has already deemed it to be false!
Quick Take
A California bill would do away with mandatory investigations of stillbirths. Opponents misleadingly claim it would “legalize infanticide.” The bill would prevent prosecution in cases of “perinatal death due to a pregnancy-related cause.” But authorities would investigate if there were evidence of foul play leading to an infant’s death.
Full Story
A California bill that would protect parents from investigation and prosecution if they lose or choose to end a pregnancy has been spun into a falsehood that the state is set to “legalize infanticide.”
The pastor of a southern California megachurch, for example, posted a message on Facebook claiming that the bill “would legalize infanticide!”
Other opponents have been posting similar claims, including Jenna Ellis — a member of former President Donald Trump’s campaign legal team — who wrote on Facebook, “This is INSANELY evil. California Democrats are trying to legalize killing children up to the age of 28 days.”
But there is no bill in the California state legislature that would make it legal to kill a person of any age. What these posts are referring to is Assembly Bill 2223, which is part of a slate of legislation supported by the Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and the California Future of Abortion Council that aim to strengthen protection of abortion rights in California as some other states have reduced access.
The bill states:
Assembly Bill 2223, as amended April 6: Pregnancies can end in a range of outcomes. Nationwide, as many as one in five known pregnancies end in miscarriage. In California, as many as 2,365 pregnancies per year end in stillbirth, meaning perinatal loss after 20 weeks gestation. Many pregnancy losses have no known explanation.
People also need to end pregnancies by abortion, including self-managed abortion, which means ending one’s own pregnancy outside of the medical system.
Every Californian should have the right to feel secure that they can seek medical assistance during pregnancy without fear of civil or criminal liability.
The threat of criminal prosecution of pregnancy outcomes is partly traceable to out-of-date provisions that give coroners a duty to investigate certain abortions and pregnancy losses. Based on these provisions, health care providers and institutions report people to law enforcement for pregnancy losses, leading to harmful investigations and even unlawful prosecutions.
Civil and criminal penalties imposed on pregnant people is a critical issue for Black, Indigenous, and other people of color, who experience adverse pregnancy outcomes as a result of systemic racial inequities and are more likely to be under scrutiny of state systems like child welfare or immigration.
The threat of criminal prosecutions or civil penalties on pregnant people through child welfare, immigration, housing, or other legal systems has a harmful effect on individual and public health. When a person fears state action being taken against them related to their pregnancy, they are less likely to seek medical care when they need it. If they do seek care, punishing them for actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcomes interferes with professional care and endangers the relationship between providers and patients.
So, that describes the general intent of the bill. The confusion that it might somehow “legalize infanticide” appears to have come from an early version of the bill, which was introduced in February.
In that version, a portion of the bill said (emphasis ours), “Notwithstanding any other law, a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise deprived of their rights, 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.”
The term “perinatal death” can include both fetal death and death that occurs within days or weeks of birth.
An analysis from the Assembly Judiciary Committee prepared for an April 5 hearing on the bill suggested clarifying that section since, the report said, that “language could lead to an unintended and undesirable conclusion.”
The report continued: “As currently in print, it may not be sufficiently clear that ‘perinatal death’ is intended to be the consequence of a pregnancy complication. Thus, the bill could be interpreted to immunize a pregnant person from all criminal penalties for all pregnancy outcomes, including the death of a newborn for any reason during the ‘perinatal’ period after birth, including a cause of death which is not attributable to pregnancy complications, which clearly is not the author’s intent.”
The bill’s language was then amended to say, “perinatal death due to a pregnancy-related cause.” The bill’s sponsor, Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, took to Twitter the same day as the committee hearing to address the claims of legalized infanticide.
“Let me be clear: #AB2223 doesn’t prevent the state from keeping children safe. This isn’t a bill about infanticide. This is about protecting Californians who suffer pregnancy loss from being unjustly investigated, prosecuted or incarcerated. Full stop,” she wrote, before going on to highlight the change to the language.
Still, the claims have persisted, as shown by the examples above.
We asked Khiara Bridges, a professor at the University of California Berkeley School of Law, to explain whether or not there would be any risk that the law would allow for the killing of infants or children.
“Even before adding that language — it’s absurd to think it would legalize infanticide,” Bridges said.
“No judge in the world would understand the killing of a baby that’s born and outside of the uterus as a pregnancy outcome,” which is what the bill is focused on — making sure that parents aren’t criminalized for the outcome of a pregnancy.
If there’s evidence of foul play leading to the death of an infant or child, authorities will investigate as usual, she said.
“This bill does not immunize that behavior at all. It will be investigated,” Bridges said.
So, claims that California is poised to “legalize infanticide” or “legalize killing children” are false.
Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.
DERP!
Errrrrrr uh, ok FactCheck.org, thanks for clearing it up for me!
For a second there I thought they chose a word that very intentionally included days and weeks POST-BIRTH.
But thank God we have Fact-Checkers like you to set the record straight!
Wanna know something else very disturbing?
California isn’t alone.
Just a few days ago, we reported on a nearly identical new Law from Colorado.
All those details here:
New Colorado Law To Allow Abortion Up To 28 Days AFTER Birth?
Join the conversation!
Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!