California close to passing law that would legalize killing babies after birth

The Progressive lawmakers in California are so enthusiastic about abortion that they are coming close to passing a law that would legalize killing babies outside of the womb.

Whether this was intentional or due to an accidental wording in the law, that we don't really know for sure. When they had in mind killing babies outside of the womb, probably what that was "supposed to" mean is babies that survived an abortion, and were either very unlikely to survive or had some horrible deformity or medical condition. But the wording in the law would, theoretically, allow the killing of other babies too.

A few Democrat lawmakers have spoken up about this and said the language in the law goes too far.

The proposed law uses the term "perinatal death", which is defined as up to 7 days after birth.

The proposed law does qualify by adding that it be "due to a pregnancy related cause", but Pro-Life legal experts have still said that vague language could lead to some troubling concerns. (Just look at how the "health" exception is being abused in several states to allow late-term abortions past the viability point, for example)

Legislative Bombshell: Bill to Decriminalize Killing Newborns Introduced - California Family Council

California advances abortion bill that attorneys say could legalize killing babies after birth - LifeSite (lifesitenews.com)

Of course multiple "Fact Check" sources coming from the Progressive Left are somewhat dishonestly claiming that this is fake news. But if you very carefully read the details of those "Fact Check" sources, you will see that what those articles are actually saying does not really entirely conflict with the Pro-Life claim about what this law would do.

 

Those liberal "fact check" sites are not worth the appearance of the ink on the screen when you read their garbage.

 

I find that they are a lot like lawyers; they lie through their teeth while at the same time managing to technically not actually state any fact that is a lie.

 

They claimed the same thing about that recent law in New York that legalized late term abortions up to birth. Yes, technically it was not actually "legalized", but the law pretty much took away any real responsibility, and the wording of the law seemingly made it impractical or almost impossible to be able to actually prosecute anyone for abuse of the vague "health" exception. That combined with vague language that almost left it ambiguous whether all abortion was allowed or not.
So it was practically the same thing as "legalization", even if it wasn't technically or literally.

 

Tsk tsk tsk

Dint like it when they prove “newsmuck” and “faux” are wrong?

 

And have women been flocking to New York in droves so they can have thier late term abortions for the sole reason to fit into a bikini again

And before anyone asks - that rationale was being used for quite a while by the anti- choices

 

Well we just don't know, because no one is keeping records on this specifically.

 

Okay

Let us start a thread on it - you point out the errors, of course you will have to apply the same rigorous methodology they do…..

 

Why not? I mean surely the right has been monitoring this

 

It's pretty simple. "Perinatal death" (killing babies up to 7 days after birth) is allowed if they can somehow argue it was "due to a pregnancy related cause".

How exactly that could be interpreted is up to anyone's guess.

I suppose a lawyer could try to argue that all sorts of things are "related" to pregnancy.

(Remember: This law is talking about babies or fetuses AFTER they have come out)

 

Oooopsie! Here is a real inconvenient fact - a link to the actual bill

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2223

 

Have you actually READ the bill?
No??
Well I think you might want to read the link above before the level of “egg on face” rises above your eyebrows

 

The specific use of the word "perinatal" means they are specifically including babies after birth.

What that actually has to do with pregnancy is beyond me, but clearly this law is completely intentioned to draw some connection between pregnancy and a baby after it has come out.

That explanation that you quoted is just as misleading as the wording of the law itself.

When they say "with respect of pregnancy", they're NOT actually talking about when that baby is inside the woman.
But a reader who didn't know better would very likely be inclined to just automatically and mistakenly assume that.

"Pregnancy outcome" could be a euphemism for "I didn't want that baby, so why did you allow it to live?"

"Alleged pregnancy outcome" means there is almost no burden of proof to show to be able to justify this.

 

Please do not alter my posts as it will be reported to the moderators and I personally consider those doing so to require being placed on “ignore”

 

I did not alter your quote. I only selected a piece of something you had quoted from somewhere else.

Because my post was addressing that part specifically.

 

With regard to "fetal viability" they will probably argue that the baby "probably" could not have survived, either due to being born premature or some medical issue.

 

That is altering it especially since the piece you “selected” although “selectively edited” would be more accurate, was NOT my text. Next time quote directly from the source itself and CITE IT CORRECTLY!

 

Biut Foetal viability is the current cut off for RvW. Do you have any proof that is currently happening under RvW?

 

Looks like this law also opens up the door to super late-term abortions.

From the law:

The performance of an abortion is unauthorized if performed by someone other than the pregnant person and if either of the following is true:
...
(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 according to a literal interpretation of this law, the tiniest risk to life or any health risk (no matter how trivial) would allow that abortion on a viable fetus to be authorized.

 

Do you know who runs Snopes and what has actual qualifications are?

They all have an obvious bias and unless you're bias prevents you from admitting it I'm sure you would agree

 

Please tell me she purred

 

Here is the other relevant section from this proposed law:

"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 due to a pregnancy-related cause.

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."
​

If this only has to do with pregnancy, then why did they choose to use the term "perinatal"?

That makes it seem like this law is intended to deal with events including shortly after the pregnancy, right after birth.

As if, in their minds, they see what happens right after birth as falling under the same category of "pregnancy".

One thing this law seems to do is make it impossible to use a "pregnancy outcome" as evidence against the woman. I guess both arguments could be made both in favor and against that.
That alone right there would make it nearly impossible to prosecute a woman for homicide of her newborn baby (unless there were witnesses, which would probably be very unlikely in that case).

 

This isn't about RvW.
If you change your question and ask simply "Do you have any proof that is currently happening?", then the answer I would respond with would be "Do you have any proof that is currently happening? Is any data about this being collected?"

 

What's your point? It sounds an awful lot like the recent law in Tennessee, I think it was, that would have inadvertently allowed 14 year olds to get married-- don't you think? A mistake, not anything intentional. And do you really think any mother, or any healthcare facility, would kill a healthy baby? Trying to make something out of this is a real stretch, bordering on the pathetic.

 

And what do you think is wrong with that? Many people in Tennessee view sex within a marriage as preferable to sex with many different partners outside a marriage.

I don't wish to change the topic, but my point is that is really not a good example, because there are plenty of people who would not disapprove of that.

Typically none of the fathers are enthusiastic about their 14 year old daughter getting married, but it is usually done when there is a pregnancy.
A better alternative than Abortion (I know many Abortion supporters will disagree).

Tennessee country singer Loretta Lynn married when she was 15.
It's not extremely unheard of there.