Under California AB 2223, a mother will be shielded from civil and criminal charges for any “actions or omissions” related to her pregnancy. These actions include not only abortion in any stage of pregnancy, but also “perinatal death.” Perinatal death is defined as the death of a newborn up to seven days or more.
In the proposed legislation put forth by assemblywoman Buffy Wicks (D-Berkeley), the murder of unborn and born children would be codified as a legal act, and advertised as “women’s reproductive rights.” Since he took office, Gavin Newsom has sought to expand access to abortion and make California a “sanctuary state” for these so-called women’s rights. The new bill protects anyone who “aids or assists a pregnant person in exercising” these so-called rights. The bill also gives mothers the newfound power to sue police departments if an officer arrests anyone conspiring to kill babies.
“A political culture that justifies killing millions of children in the womb is now declaring open season on unwanted newborns. Every Californian must oppose this heinous bill,” said Jonathan Keller, President of the California Family Council.
link
I don’t agree with this but the strict logic of abortion does not exclude this possibility. For that matter, “women’s reproductive rights” no longer exclude biological males. So males with what relation to the “pregnant person” or the issue of their pregnancy will be allowed to cause “perinatal death” to that issue? Will merely “believing you were the father” suffice? Or that you “might have been the father”? What about “the actual father moved away three months ago and I ain’t raising his kid”? ABN
American Buddhist Net 