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

quote:

---

most EVIL bill

---

More likely just written by an Ivy League dumbfrick who thinks she's above little things like the actual meanings of words.

quote:

---

Yes. And that’s the reason you don’t want to do it.

---

OK, lets have some fun.

I will define it as up to one month post delivery.

Go on with your point

Does this include Anchor Babies and if so can the State make this mandatory?

quote:

---

So according to your first post in this thread, anyone believing this statement is stupid:

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

Yet, the actual text of this law along with the time period you just defined literally just proved that statement is true.

---

Yes, to you simpletons who completely lack reading comprehension. I can't read and understand things for your, my friend.

As NC has already pointed out:

quote:

---

I suspected the "perinatal" language was designed to support a Ralph Northam "make 'em cumferble" abortion-born-alive premise.

It turns out the intent is only a bit less loathsome. The intent is to protect mothers from birth outcome liability. E.g., child's lifelong disability following botched abortion, or drug abuse during pregnancy.

However, given a live-birth, both MD and mother are obligated to normal pediatric standard of care. IOW they must do all they can to ensure survival.

California Health and Safety Code 123435 is unchanged, and states:"The rights to medical treatment of an infant prematurely born alive in the course of an abortion shall be the same as the rights of an infant of similar medical status prematurely born spontaneously."

---

quote:

---

Because you’re a progressive moron that is in support of this insanity, you reflexively defend it by comparing it to an extreme like babies being thrown off bridges.

---

This is not an extreme. This is what you simpletons think the bill allows

quote:

---

You do this because you’re hoping to distract attention from the ambiguity and big blue ocean of possibilities that exist that could be defined as “deaths from pregnancy-related causes” and are therefore protected by this law. All it would take is a “doctor” like you or one of your fellow progressive lunatics.

---

There is legit criticism of this bill (I have already stated my issues) that doesn't require the clickbait nonsense that this legalizes killing infants as long as you sneak it in within the first month.

quote:

---

But they, very intentionally, chose to use perinatal. And they, very intentionally, didn’t even define what time period is meant by that word. Why do you think that is?

---

Again, NC addresses this. How many ways do you need this explained to you before you get it?

quote:

---

Yes, to you simpletons who completely lack reading comprehension.

---

Simpletons ignore the basic meaning of words in order to defend their abhorrent belief systems.

You are a simpleton.

quote:

---

I can't read and understand things for your, my friend.

---

You can’t read and understand things for yourself, moron.

quote:

---

As NC has already pointed out:

---

Interpretation of the intent of a law can and does vary across many variables. Meaning of words remains relatively consistent, except when you progressive morons attempt to change their meanings.

The words composing this law were chosen deliberately for a reason, and all it takes is a progressive lunatic doctor or activist da/judge to interpret them in a way that conforms with your fricked up belief system to allow the things to happen that you swear can’t happen.

quote:

---

This is not an extreme. This is what you simpletons think the bill allows

---

Prove you’re not a simpleton and actually do understand the meaning of words.

Quote a single person in this thread that believes this bill allows babies to be thrown off bridges.

quote:

---

There is legit criticism of this bill (I have already stated my issues) that doesn't require the clickbait nonsense that this legalizes killing infants as long as you sneak it in within the first month.

---

The “clickbait nonsense” is 1) factually correct, and 2) brings awareness to the incredibly shitty things you progressive lunatics are trying to do. That’s what you don’t like about the headlines.

quote:

---

Again, NC addresses this. How many ways do you need this explained to you before you get it?

---

Subjective interpretations of intent are not addressing or explaining anything. Just like before when you provided a non-answer to the question.

So you all are like Lott in Soddem.

California is still run by Satan regardless of if there are a few good people living there.

Get your state under control or get out before it’s too late.

For people on this page so against fake news, you sure spread it like wildfire. Every comment in that loons X post is that it isn’t true. Grok agrees and nothing else online is saying that.

You guys run with everything

quote:

---

No. California has not passed a law allowing babies to be killed up to 28 days after birth.

The claim is false and stems from a misunderstanding of a 2022 law, Assembly Bill 2223 (AB 2223).

Here’s what happened: * Critics pointed to language about “perinatal death” and argued that because some medical definitions of the perinatal period can extend up to 28 days after birth, the bill would legalize killing newborns.

* In response to those concerns, the bill’s language was clarified before becoming law. The enacted law protects people from criminal or civil liability for pregnancy outcomes such as miscarriage, stillbirth, abortion, or perinatal death due to causes that occurred in utero (before birth).

The law does not:

* Permit the intentional killing of a baby after birth.
* Repeal California’s homicide or child abuse laws.
* Create any legal window (7 days, 28 days, or otherwise) during which killing a newborn is allowed.

---