Several of us have noted this recently on other threads. The analysis of the Chief Counsel is accurate. The angst here is that folks actually read the bill and found out. The bill purposefully provides up to a 4 week post birth window to absolve a new mother, even for gross neglect that leads to a fatality from being criminally responsible for their actions, or inactions in this case that lead to the death of a new born. CA is just putting words to the notion that a mother can legally kill their offspring. it is the natural extension of my body my choice. Even post birth it would seem. Will liberals continue to try to misdirect or try to hide one of their seminal legislative victories here? Time will tell. Think about it this way, CA has just legislatively declared children as chattel. It sometimes only takes one little snowflake to create that avalanche...
I think you will find that neglect would be cobpvered under different legislation. Do you agree though with automatically charging a mother with a crime if her baby dies within that four week period?
Gosnell, because there was no government oversight of his practice, was essentially operating outside of the law. He is the best example of a “backyard abortionist” that can be found in recent American history. Unfortunately he is the precursor of what will now happen in places like Texas
Not really - as I said Gosnell was operating without due oversight. Where abortion is legal constraint can and are put in place to ensure safety for all is maintained. Without that oversight we will see more mutilated women and later term abortions as women put off the procedure either because of cost or fear. Keeping abortion legal, particularly now with the rise of “medical” abortions (mifepristone) means that abortions are occurring most commonly within eight weeks.
I have no idea what cobpvered means... Women aren't automatically charged unless there is a case for neglect or intent. Perhaps things are different in the penal colony, but in the US, there are actually laws that this new CA bill would abrogate and supersede. CA seems to be taking a very extreme position here by allowing post paritm death to go uninvestigated and unchargeable.
Typo Then if they are not routinely charged - does that not indicate that they should not be ergo allowing for this law to be in effect
So you're ok creating a special carve out in the law to exclude mothers from facing charges should they kill their baby via neglect? Really?
I've read it as well. The OP is not only about the wording of the legislation, it's about the potential for reinterpretation of the wording. "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 related 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 . . . ."
Abortion Will Eventually Lead To Infanticide Naw, I bet infanticide came before women learned how to abort a fetus , about 10,000 years ago. I bet humans killed babies long before they learned about abortion. Safe, legal abortions could only lead to LESS born babies dying...
You can reword it any way you want, but the truth is that the bill itself is not saying what you claim its saying. Re-worded versions are.....well.....lies.....propaganda, which is why you re-word them as opposed to quoting from the bill itself. The above text is not from the bill.
Who said that is the issue here? I would not make judgement until I have seen all laws in Ca. But which way do you want to fall with this + charge all women who suffer child loss or narrow it to only those where there may be suspicion of foul play?
You can deny it all you want, you're not fooling anyone. The devil is always in the details, in the interpretations, and we know the history of leftists reinterpreting legislation. They will absolutely corrupt the intent of the law and eventually justify infanticide.
can y can you imagine a fetus flushing down the toilet? i find it incredible that one would fit without several plunges and a snake? as a juror i might consider that testimony perjured. .
With approximately a planet-choking 8,000,000,000 people in this world (a dramatic increase from the 4.6 billion just forty years ago), we should not inhibit the right of people who want "Do Not Resuscitate"! And, as I've said for as long as I've written posts about abortion, it is sheer political suicide for any political faction to try to ban abortion. No matter how disastrous their ideas are on the economy, foreign policy, immigration, welfare handouts, 'crime-and-punishment', and many more issues, Democrats know they can always rally women voters to their cause by promoting the hysteria that all Republicans want to wreck legal abortion in this country. But it's simply not true... in fact, a sizeable portion of us Conservatives (not necessarily "Republicans", per se) believe that if a woman doesn't want to have something growing inside her (HER) body, she should have the undisturbed right to do anything about it she likes... period! Here's a shocker -- as much as I loathe the large and growing 'smörgåsbord' of welfare programs that Democrats use over here to get votes and stay in power, I'd completely support our government paying all the costs of abortion for poor women. No, it's not 'altruism', but the realization that in these cases, it's either a one-time expenditure for a procedure, or, the government is usually put in a position of providing year after year of welfare for 'Mama' and as many 'babies' as she, uh, accumulates.... Now, please one counter-observation to your statement, "Of course they don't care if someone kills someone else via firearms". I don't know what the preferred 'mode d’emploi' for violent crimes is in France, but over here it is definitely firearms. Consequently, we law-abiding Americans turn more and more to firearms, and our right to possess and use them, as a defensive method to protect ourselves from criminals... nothing more, and nothing less.
Responding to the highlighted in bold portion of your comments. At first I was leaning in agreement with you, but then I thought: What if just one of those unborn babies grew up to discover a cure for cancer saving us trillion of dollars in cancer treatments? Would that make me rethink the cost savings you're suggesting? I'm towards yes. What say ye?
I'm not the one trying to fool anyone by re-wording the text in order to mislead readers. You are doing that. YOU, not them, is reinterpreting / re-wording it. That's what you are trying to sell, but since you have to re-word things out of shape, your efforts come across desperate and dishonest
Uh, with all the BILLIONS and BILLIONS of people born so far there is no cure for cancer ( or Covid or a thousand other illnesses and diseases)....and nothing stopping it....however, some cancer/disease is caused by chemical pollution which would be alleviated with less humans on earth... If the billions and billions of people born so far haven't solved our problems what makes you think pumping people out at record speeds would??
So, as of now, your OP is fake. And your insinuation that it may one day be true is baseless paranoia.
Well, that's a fair point you raise, but then we can consider the contributions of past notable figures and ask: If they had been aborted how far back in medical/technical advances would we be? Could we still be living in the "dark ages"?
No, someone else would come along and invent electricity ...there were many who contributed to medical/technical advances, not just one single person.
