That's the issue the Chief Council for the California lawmaker authors of this legislation has commented about, unintended consequences of the legislation.
To deal with concerns over the language about "perinatal death" in AB 2223, its author, Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, offered an amendment to the legislation, which is detailed (page 10) in the bill analysis (download here) from the Assembly Committee on Judiciary: In order to clarify that the immunity provided by the bill only extends to the deprivation of rights related to pregnancy, the author proposes the following amendment on Page 7, at line 7: insert the words 'under this article' after the word 'rights'. 'Perinatal Death' - Second, the 'perinatal death' language could lead to an unintended and undesirable conclusion. 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. While the bill does not define 'perinatal,' the term is generally used to describe the period from approximately past 22 (or 2 completed weeks of pregnancy up to 7 completed days of life. (L.S.Bakketeig, P.Bergsjø, 'Perinatal Epidemiology.' International Encyclopedia of Public Health (200, p. 45.) Welfare & Institutions Code Section 13134.5(b) defines perinatal as 'the period from the establishment of pregnancy to one month following delivery.' In order to clarify that the bill's immunity provision is only intended to apply to a perinatal death after a live birth when the cause of death is directly attributable to pregnancy, the author proposes the following clarifying amendment on Page 7, at line 10: insert 'due to a pregnancy-related cause' at the end of the sentence. Reflecting both of the above-proposed amendments, the entire subdivision would read as follows: 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 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. In other words, no one will be legally allowed to kill off a newborn
I was glad to see these amendments. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2223
Same. I think it goes to show that no one is looking to allow people to kill newborns. Outside of someone demented, no one WANTS to kill newborns. It's beyond illogical to claim an entire political party wants to kill newborns, yet here we are with many people actually believing such.
What sort of moral decline says that underage girls should be forced to carry the babies produced by their father's rape of them to term even if it risks their lives, because the Roman Catholic Church approves of that right now
I'm sorry - I don't understand your response. What is the unintended consequences of what legislation? And how does that answer my question about who decides and who actually kills an otherwise healthy baby?
Rape is terrible, and I can't even get my head around a father raping his daughter. But the baby resulting from a rape is innocent, not deserving of being killed.
Double hurrah x 2 I absolutely reject any bunch of men legislating about women's rigjt to decide what she wants for herself and her child. MEN who want to have a voice 9n such matters should damn well step up to their responsibilities and help pay for 18 years of a woman's life they decided she should live through.
When a fetus has a deformity that either makes in not-viable ex utero, or will be unable to function as a independent being, then yes, I believe the parents should have the right to make a decision. When a fetus is healthy and is fully able to function as an independent being, then there should be no decision being made with exception to the immediate health of the mother.
I discussed your OP, which was a gross misrepresentation of the bill in question. At this point your claims have been proven wrong so many times in this thread, that its becoming a moot point to discuss it any further. I see you sport a cross on your avatar, so feel compelled to remind you that God hates a false witness and the lying tongue.
I don't have to worry about that, at least not in this case, but maybe you do. Remove the log from your eye first.
You should worry, but maybe you just do what you do and repent later, and then do it again. I know your type.
So please correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that a bill allows a mother to kill a newborn child - with or without assistance/encouragement - and there will be no consequences?
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that are legitimate concern the law proposed in California could be interpreted to permit that.
