re: California passed a law that could allow babies to be killed up to 28 days AFTER birth.

quote:

---

What's the catch? Has to be a very narrow niche instance of the child is badly suffering and has severe abnormalities that would cause its death, and doctors are in agreement that the life of the child can't be saved with surgery, or the child is born brain dead and is only able to live artificially.

---

from Tony Seruga:

quote:

---

Time for some REAL facts, not carefully curated Grok bullshite!

Let’s take these one at a time.

?? California AB-2223 and the “Perinatal” Language

This is putting our finger on the exact word that makes this bill so insidious.

The text of the law (California Health & Safety Code § 123467, as amended by AB-2223) states that a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability for:

“...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 causes that occurred in utero.”

Now, the perinatal period is from 20 weeks’ gestation through 28 days after birth. That’s not a colloquialism. That’s a defined medical term. And they chose it deliberately.

The defense from the bill’s supporters — and from outlets like FactCheck.org and Grok — is that the law only covers perinatal death “due to causes that occurred in utero.” The argument goes: if a baby dies after birth from something that happened in the womb, the mother can’t be prosecuted. That’s the surface reading.

But here’s what they’re not saying:

“Causes that occurred in utero” is an extraordinarily elastic legal standard. What doesn’t originate in utero for a newborn? Gestational development, genetic conditions, complications during delivery — almost anything that goes wrong with a newborn can be traced back to conditions that existed before birth. You’d need a medical examiner willing to draw a bright line between pre-birth and post-birth causation, and in practice, that line dissolves under any competent defense attorney’s argument.

The law creates a de facto immunity zone for the first 28 days. If a mother — or anyone acting with her — causes the death of a newborn and can point to any in-utero factor, prosecution becomes functionally impossible. The burden shifts entirely onto the state to prove the death had zero connection to prenatal conditions. That’s not how criminal law normally works, and everyone in that legislature knew it. Especially Scott Wiener (see second image)!

The word choice is the tell. If the intent were only to protect women from prosecution for miscarriages and stillbirths, the word “prenatal” would have sufficed. “Perinatal” was a choice. And in legislative drafting, word choices at this level of consequence are never accidents.

This is how modern infanticide gets legalized — not with a bill titled “The Baby Killing Act,” but with carefully chosen medical terminology that creates prosecutorial immunity through ambiguity. The ACLU and Planned Parenthood know exactly what they lobbied for.

??? The Born-Alive Vote in the Senate

Was the January 22, 2025 cloture vote on S.6, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. The facts:

- The vote: 52-47 in favor, falling short of the 60-vote filibuster threshold
- 52 Republicans voted yes. Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) didn’t vote, but the GOP held their line
- 47 Democrats voted no — every single one present

What the bill actually required:

- A healthcare practitioner present at a live birth after an attempted abortion must exercise the same degree of care as they would for any other child born at the same gestational age

- The child must be immediately admitted to a hospital

- Failure to comply: fines, up to 5 years in prison

- Intentional killing of a born-alive child: prosecuted as murder

- The mother is explicitly exempt from prosecution and can bring civil action

Schumer’s floor speech called it “pernicious” and claimed it “substitutes the judgment of qualified medical professionals” with “ultra-right ideology.” His core argument — and the one every Democrat hides behind — is that killing a born-alive infant is already illegal, so the bill is redundant.

Why that argument is garbage:

Existing laws against homicide don’t specify medical context. A doctor who lets a born-alive infant die can argue — and has argued — that this was a “comfort care” decision, that the baby was “non-viable,” that they were following the mother’s wishes. Without a statute that specifically mandates equal care for abortion survivors, those defenses work. The Born-Alive Act removes those defenses. That’s the whole point.

The Democrats’ real objection isn’t redundancy. It’s that the bill creates a legal obligation to treat a child they’d prefer didn’t exist. A living, breathing baby who survived an abortion is a political catastrophe for the abortion-rights position. The bill forces doctors to acknowledge that baby as a patient with rights, not a complication to be managed.

The political calculus:

This was a messaging vote by Republicans — they knew they didn’t have 60. They wanted every Democrat on record opposing what is, on its face, a bill that says “don't let born babies die.” And Democrats walked right into it, because their base demands absolute opposition to any legislation that acknowledges fetal or neonatal personhood.

Schumer said this proves Republicans won't “leave it to the states.” He’s right — and that’s the point. If you believe a born-alive infant is a human being deserving of medical care, then leaving it to California to legalize “perinatal death” immunity isn’t acceptable. Federal protection is the only answer.

?? The Connection Between These Two Stories

AB-2223 and the Born-Alive vote are two prongs of the same strategy:

View the first image below.

The through-line is the refusal to recognize a bright legal line at birth. Once you blur that line — once a living, breathing infant outside the womb can be legally abandoned to die because of “causes that occurred in utero” — you’ve erased the most fundamental boundary in medical ethics. That’s not reproductive healthcare. That’s postnatal eugenics dressed in medical terminology.

---

What the Law Actually Does

Protects from Prosecution: The law ensures that pregnant individuals will not be investigated, prosecuted, or incarcerated for experiencing a miscarriage, stillbirth, abortion, or pregnancy-related causes.Prevents Coroner Inquiries: It abolishes the legal requirement that county coroners investigate fetal deaths under 20 weeks as "unattended deaths," which had previously subjected some mothers to criminal investigations for miscarriages.Does Not Legalize Infanticide: According to legal experts, county coroners can still investigate newborn deaths to determine if they were caused by post-birth abuse, neglect, or abandonment. The law only protects parents from prosecution in the event that the death is found to be pregnancy-related.

quote:

---

States can apply there own homicide laws.

---

And the feds can apply their own charges.

quote:

---

KCT

---

quote:

---

Congratulations. You are the useful idiot that gets targeted and duped by clickbait media.

---

I didn't post the thread, fool. If it isn't real, then I'm actually glad.

But, we've already seen where states have talked about allowing abortions AFTER GIVING BIRTH. I guess you've missed all of that.


EDIT - As usual, you were lying.

Feds need to start civil rights prosecutions.

All persons BORN in the US are citizens. Use that clause against these monsters.

Reminds me of the stuff Maddox used to put out late 90's like this LINK

"I'm tired of political candidates pussy-footing delicately around the issue of abortion. Every time I turn on the TV, there's always some group of hippies protesting "for choice" or "for life." Each group pisses the other off, and no candidate will take a strong enough stance on the issue of abortion, so I've decided to form a political party of my own:

The Regressive Party
I have a different stance on abortion: I'm against abortion, but for killing babies. That way everyone loses, and I win. I'm neither pro choice, nor pro life; I'm pro you-shutting-the-hell-up. The only way I'd be "pro choice" is if it meant I could choose which babies I could abort, and only then if I could lift the age restriction to 80."

looking back this guys was so far ahead of his time and probably posts here now.

That is straight up murder, I don't care what law they pass.

quote:

---

BLOCKED by Senator Schumer

---

Scum