Assembly Bill 2223 by Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), misleadingly labeled “Reproductive health,” actually legalizes infanticide in an abortion bill to expand the killing of babies past the moment of birth up to weeks after, according to opponents of the bill. Wicks says “women should not be prosecuted for a pregnancy loss.”
Opponents point to the vague language and new phraseology of abortion terms: “Although definitions of ‘perinatal death’ vary, all of them include the demise of newborns seven days or more after birth,” the California Family Council said.
Assemblywoman Wicks insisted in a hearing in the Assembly Judiciary Committee Tuesday that AB 2223 does not support infanticide, and has only been labeled such because of the spread of misinformation by those who oppose the bill. Wicks said while other states are adopting increasingly aggressive measures to limit abortions, California continues to protect reproductive rights.
Wicks said the bill only applies to pregnant women who should “not be prosecuted for losing or miscarrying a baby,” or for a “tragic situation during pregnancy.” She spoke of two women who were “prosecuted for their stillborns.”
“Parents should not be be criminalized for a tragic loss,” Wicks said.
From the bill analysis, According to the author (Wicks): “AB 2223 protects reproductive freedom by clarifying that the Reproductive Privacy Act prohibits pregnancy criminalization, and creates a private right of action for people whose rights have been violated to seek accountability using civil courts. It would also remove outdated provisions requiring coroners to investigate certain pregnancy losses, and ensure that information collected about pregnancy loss is not used to target people through criminal or civil legal systems.”
What kind of “tragic loss” is Wicks talking about in the “criminal prosecution of pregnancy outcomes?”
These are the terms used in AB 2223 and by supporters to explain:
- pregnancy loss
- Reproductive health
- Reproductive justice
- reproductive rights
- pregnant person
- pregnancy outcomes
- self-managing an abortion
Two attorneys from “reproductive justice” law firms representing the two women who were prosecuted spoke in support of AB 2223 and explained the criminal prosecutions. One of the women was charged with 1st Degree murder for the “still birth” of her infant, because the mother was addicted to and using meth while pregnant. But the attorney claimed “meth addiction cannot cause still birth.
The second attorney took the creative language even further stating that women should not be criminally prosecuted for a still birth or pregnancy loss, or for “self-managing an abortion.
The attorneys clearly conflated a miscarriage and still-birth in non-addicted pregnant women with pregnant addicted drug users.
The back story is that California Attorney General Rob Bonta is working with Assemblywoman Wicks on this. Last year, AG Bonta “filed multiple briefs in support of Ms. Perez’s work to obtain her freedom from prison. In the briefs, the Attorney General argued that pregnant individuals cannot be prosecuted or convicted under California’s statutes for murder of a fetus based on the outcome of their pregnancy.
In January he issued a legal alert to all California district attorneys, police chiefs, and sheriffs stating that “section 187 of the California Penal Code was intended to hold accountable those who inflict harm on pregnant individuals, resulting in miscarriage or stillbirth, not to punish people who suffer the loss of their pregnancy. The alert aims to prevent improper and unjust applications of the law similar to the prosecutions of Adora Perez and Chelsea Becker – two women in Kings County who were charged with ‘fetal murder’ for allegedly causing the stillbirth of their fetuses. The charges against Ms. Becker were dismissed in May 2021. However, Ms. Perez remains in prison serving an 11-year sentence.”
However, buried in his alert is the law: “Penal Code section 187 defines murder as ‘the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.’ Reference to ‘a fetus’ was added in 1970 when the California Legislature amended section 187,” Bonta said. His alert “reiterates that the Legislature did not intend to include a pregnant person’s own actions that might result in a miscarriage or stillbirth.”
But if the “fetus” is killed due to drug addiction and drug use by the mother, how can Bonta claim that isn’t the “intent” of the law?
Don’t OB/Gyn physicians still warn pregnant women against smoking, drinking alcohol, drug use and even taking Tylenol and allergy medications throughout the pregnancy?
Bonta needs Wick’s legislation passed and signed into law if his legal briefs are going anywhere.
The California Family Council explains its opposition:
They intend to not only codify the killing of unborn children throughout all nine months of pregnancy but to decriminalize killing newborns days or even weeks after birth.
New language added to AB 2223 last week revealed the disturbing intent. The proposed legislation would shield a mother from civil and criminal charges for any “actions or omissions” related to her pregnancy, “including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death.” Although definitions of “perinatal death” vary, all of them include the demise of newborns seven days or more after birth.
It also allows a woman to sue any police department or legal authority which arrests or charges her for hurting or killing her child under provisions of the bill.
A right-to-life attorney spoke in opposition and said California Penal Code Section 187 already prohibits late term abortions, and anyone who intentionally harms a baby. She said peri-natal death is considered up to one month upon delivery. “California Health and Safety Code 123435 protects the rights of premature infants born alive,”she said.
Another right-to-life attorney said the language in the bill was vague, with references to “interferences” with late-term abortions. “What does that mean?” she asked. “No definition of ‘peri-natal’ stops at birth,” she added. She said with California as an “abortion sanctuary” state, there will be no right-to-life at 39 weeks, yet, “neither can care for themselves for many years.
She also noted that according to AB 2223, law enforcement will be barred from investigating an infant death.
During her closing, Assemblywoman Wicks again said, “this is not a bill about infanticide,” and women should “not be prosecuted for a pregnancy loss.”
AB 2223 was passed along party lines out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
The bill is co-sponsored by ACLU California Action, Black Women for Wellness, California Latinas for Reproductive Justice, If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, NARAL Pro-Choice California, and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.
For more on this topic, read California: The Golden State Becomes The Abortion State: Abortion tourism and infanticide are now California attractions.
View Comments (42)
Buffy Wicks is a vile human.
This bill has deceitful language.
One very example: “self-managing an abortion”. An abortion plain and simple is a planned end to a pre born life, whether at the hands of a mother, doctor, nurse or satan himself!
I ask all who think killing a baby is just fine to visit a Intensive Care Nursery. Parents watch helplessly and hopefully as their pre- term baby fights for life. They watch the angel nurses resuscitate, feed and care for their baby for hours on end. The will of these babies to live is quite remarkable. There is no such thing as “reproductive justice” especially in regards to pregnant drug users who not only slowly kill themselves but their unborn child or now infant!
We cannot allow this perverted progressivism to conjure up new terminology to justify the murder of babies!
Call your Assembly members!
She is not human.
I stand with you. God’s wrath is about to descend on all those who take part in murder.
Humankind has always manipulated the word, how its written and interpreted to suit their evil appetite.
Amen!!
Fed up Cali girl I agree with yea these people are flat out sick sick sick
LMAO. Can you read? Did you even read the article??!!
“Assemblywoman Wicks insisted in a hearing in the Assembly Judiciary Committee Tuesday that AB 2223 does not support infanticide, and has only been labeled such because of the spread of misinformation by those who oppose the bill. Wicks said while other states are adopting increasingly aggressive measures to limit abortions, California continues to protect reproductive rights.
Wicks said the bill only applies to pregnant women who should “not be prosecuted for losing or miscarrying a baby,” or for a “tragic situation during pregnancy.” She spoke of two women who were “prosecuted for their stillborns.”
“Parents should not be be criminalized for a tragic loss,” Wicks said.
Do social a favor and not interact if you have nothing factual or smart to say. Especially if it involves others basic human rights. Bye Karen! FLORIDA is that way! no other dumpy state would take you.
Obviously YOU have a problem with comprehension. Try reading it again only slowly and carefully. Why do you think people and companies are leaving Cal enmasse!
You should read slower and quit only picking out what benefits your argument. Learn to think in your own. Typical that you call others names because they don’t agree with. Killing babies should never be legal or ok.
Dear "you". You are nasty and critical of others because you lack self understanding and have no Conscience and Confidence in what you are saying so that you are left with nothing to do but Lash out at others who are coming Together for a Reasonable Conversation. Please. Go sit down so that the Grown-ups can talk. I'm very interested in what they have to say!!
Buffy the Baby Slayer :(
The most dangerous place to live today is, being a baby living in it's MOTHER'S womb.
Hang on, I'm still trying to process that Buffy's Infanticide Bill made it out of the Judiciary Committee. These people are out of their minds, and evil too, but now I'm repeating myself. Meanwhile, that menace of an assemblywoman Buffy "Dead Shark Eyes" Wicks can redefine and mess with the English language all she wants, but her appalling bill still legalizes INFANTICIDE and this couldn't be more clear. You know the woman is trying to pull a fast one when she calls infanticide "pregnancy loss" and tries to put the whole mess in the category of "reproductive health."
As for that snake in the grass, our own Atty General Rob Bonta, issuing "legal alerts" to the state's D.A.s, Sheriffs, and Police Chiefs and wrongly asserting that CA penal code section 187 prevents them from going after those who cause the death of their newborns, it's good to know what he spends his time on. I wonder what the state's D.A.s have to say about this. We still actually have some reasonable ones, after all, in spite of the about-to-be-recalled Boudin and Gascon. And last time I checked Bonta had some stiff competition this election year for Atty General; at least three no-nonsense challengers (including a D.A. and a former Federal Prosecutor), any one of whom would be MILES better than our current morally and ethically-challenged A.G. Mr. Bonta. Should any of them win the office, Californians would say, "oh, THAT'S what the state's Attorney General is supposed to be doing!"
Meanwhile, now is the time to write to your state reps and tell them you are opposed to this bill, that you are watching its progress, that you expect them to oppose it too, and that they must Vote No. Do your state representatives really want to be on record as voting for a bill that legalizes infanticide? Well, some will, as we've seen with Asm Buffy. But I certainly hope that what is still true is that most will NOT. No matter HOW much the language is twisted.
“Dead Shark Eyes” aptly describes this creature!
Last I checked this woman is running for a second term unopposed! People of Oakland need to wake up and vote for someone who values life, people of color are who these vultures that promote infanticide target. Again this is not about justice or womens health. It is murder and as a Californian resident I want no part of this!
It is beyond me how anyone can support AB 2223.
Buffy Wicks is running unopposed? No wonder the people of Oakland seem to have lost hope.
Yes, this is definitely not about justice or women's health. Really amazing that anyone would buy that.
The bill now goes back to the health committee to be heard. Please contact all members to vote NO.
https://ahea.assembly.ca.gov/membersstaff
Thanks for the link, Cali Girl. Everyone SHOULD contact the committees if it works for them. I know it's wise to kill bills in committee if possible so they cannot proceed on autopilot, but I don't trust those portals (to hell) and their remote B.S. call-in set-up. They are also always changing the hearing dates from what I can tell. That's just me and maybe I'm wrong. But until I become more familiar with the committees, many of whom often seem to have decided in advance, I am going straight for my elected state reps to register my outrage with something like this. My electeds have a stake. What did they used to say in product customer relations? One person who writes or calls to complain stands for 7,000 who didn't but were also unhappy? In addition to the groups already working hard to put a stop to this nonsense perhaps we as individuals can make our electeds sit up and take notice this way. Or at least that is the hope.
Please actually read articles before commenting.
“ Assemblywoman Wicks insisted in a hearing in the Assembly Judiciary Committee Tuesday that AB 2223 does not support infanticide, and has only been labeled such because of the spread of misinformation by those who oppose the bill. Wicks said while other states are adopting increasingly aggressive measures to limit abortions, California continues to protect reproductive rights.
Wicks said the bill only applies to pregnant women who should “not be prosecuted for losing or miscarrying a baby,” or for a “tragic situation during pregnancy.” She spoke of two women who were “prosecuted for their stillborns.”
“Parents should not be be criminalized for a tragic loss,” Wicks said.”
No matter how they word it, trying to confuse as many people as they can, abortion after birth is murder of an infant. Where will it end? If a pre-schooler isn't living up to our expectations, should we just get rid of the kid? This must stop !
Amen!
It is murder and must stop!
They want to normalize this, so they can escalate it.
Everyone take notice that once Texas passed the heartbeat law, these possessed progressive lawmakers went full speed ahead to advance the murder of infants. In my opinion this is not happenstance or rare this is part of the plan to destroy this country from within and it starts in California. It is evil.
Euthanasia of the old and frail could be the next thing they may try to normalize.
They had already made up their minds, despite the good reasons for opposition. This woman and anyone who votes yes on this bill is pure evil. They are damned.
Ah, politicians and their semantics; despite all the linguistic slight-of-hand verbiage, the ultimate goal is obvious.
This is the Judiciary committee breakdown.
Get busy, June 7, 2022 VOTE THEM OUT:
Votes in favor of the Infanticide Bill:
Democrats:
Eloise Reyes of San Bernardino
Robert Rivas of Salinas
Luz Rivas of Los Angeles
Brian Maienschein of San Diego
Mark Stone of Santa Cruz
Chris Holden of Pasadena
Ash Kalra of San Jose
Votes against the Infanticide Bill:
Republicans
Laurie Davies of San Juan Capistrano
Devon Mathis of Visalia
Wow, thanks for this, Cali Girl. Gee, I thought Brian Maienschein (San Diego) was a Republican. If he voted for this thing he is worse than a Democrat.
I just looked him up, he switched parties!
Ugggh.
Backstabbing traitor! Wow
This bill proposes a woman can kill her baby up to a month after it is born? That she can do whatever she wants while pregnant at any time during pregnancy to harm the fetus and not be punished. Once a woman is pregnant it is her God given responsibility to care for her self and the fetus to her best ability to ensure a healthy infant is born. Otherwise, of course it's abuse and murder. I have cared and adopted children who were born addicted to illegal substances. These children have issues, but they are alive and are able to make their own decisions as adults. Some have very successful lives and relationships. This law is ridiculous! It is a disgrace! It is legalizing murder and abuse. A horrible example of a woman who was found guilty of murder and is imprisoned was used. Of course she should be prosecuted. She should also be forgiven, prosecuted, so others will not do the same!
The stillborns died because they had a meth in their systems. Those women should have been charged. Or here’s a thought: If you have a child with drugs in its system you will be prosecuted unless you agree to a hysterectomy. Also, of course this women is sticking up for meth heads. She looks like she does meth herself