USA: In a vote of 48-21, the Democrat-controlled Assembly in California voted to pass AB 2223, which pro-life advocates have dubbed “The Infanticide Bill” because it would allow newborn babies to legally die with no penalty or punishment for the mothers.
A form of post-abortion murder, the legislation would shield a mother from all civil and criminal charges if her newborn baby dies seven days after birth or longer. All “actions or omissions” related to her pregnancy, “including miscarriage, H” would be covered.
It is the “perinatal death” portion of the bill that has pro-life advocates concerned because this is the terminology that would sanction the death of babies seven days post-birth and longer.
“Although definitions of ‘perinatal death’ vary, all of them include the death of newborns seven days or more after birth,” reported Charisma News.
Over the past several months, the corporate-controlled media has been lambasting pro-life advocates for speaking out against the bill, claiming that all concerns about its implications are “false” or “misinterpreted.” The National Catholic Register reported that some pro-life demands were heard and that some language in AB 2223 was amended.
“Today, Assembly member Buffy Wicks’ AB 2223, which came to be known as the ‘infanticide bill,’ was amended in the Assembly Appropriations Committee to confirm that a woman will not be investigated or charged for experiencing miscarriage, stillbirth, abortion or ‘perinatal death due to causes that occurred in utero,” the California Catholic Conference (CCC) said in a recent statement about the changes.
“This change definitely closes the door on potential unintended consequences of permitting infant deaths due to abuse, neglect or abandonment, alleviating the concerns that the CCC brought to the author’s attention.”
California Catholic Conference withdraws opposition to AB 2223, says California law prohibits fetal homicide
Kathleen Domingo, the CCC’s executive director, told the Register that the Assembly Judiciary Committee “agreed that the terminology ‘perinatal death’ was unclear and could lead to ‘undesirable conclusions.’”
Thus, language was modified in the bill to the point that the CCC announced withdrawal from opposition to it, claiming that state law protects infants born alive following a failed abortion from being murdered.
Other pro-life groups, however, disagree. They are still fighting against the bill because they see it as a threat to newborn life.
One of them is the Right to Life League of Southern California, which wrote an open letter to California legislators urging them to vote no against AB 2223, calling it “flawed.”
“AB 2223’s amended language – ‘perinatal death due to causes that occurred in utero’ – does nothing to change the bill’s protections for anyone who kills a baby born alive during the first 28 days of life,” the letter read.
“It justifies and excuses the intent to kill a baby born alive by pointing to vague, blanket occurrences that happened at some undefined time prior to the baby’s birth.”
The letter also stated that one of the main purposes of AB 2223 is to “cover up the cause of a baby’s death” while providing abortionists and abusers “legal cover to finish the job of killing an unwanted or inconvenient newborn by asserting the Cause In Utero Excuse up to 28 days after birth.”
“The baby can be killed and any evidence explaining his or her death will die with him or her. And that seems to be the point of AB 2223’s newest perinatal death clause – to excuse and make investigation of a newborn’s death wholly unnecessary and even actionable,” the letter further read.
by: Ethan Huff
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion about this post