Did California pass a law allowing infanticide up to 28 days after birth or is this a misinformation claim?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
California’s AB 2223 has been repeatedly misrepresented as a law that “allows infanticide up to 28 days after birth.” Multiple fact‑checks and legal experts say the bill’s purpose is to prevent prosecutions for pregnancy loss and to limit coroners’ duties after stillbirths or pregnancy‑related deaths; it does not legalize homicide or provide a defense for intentionally killing a born infant [1] [2] [3]. The bill’s text and later amendments specify protection only for pregnancy‑related or perinatal deaths, and criminal homicide laws remain separately enforceable [4] [5].
1. What the bill actually says — narrow statutory purpose
AB 2223 was drafted to shield people from civil or criminal liability based on actions or omissions “with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death” and to revise coroner duties that have led to investigations and prosecutions in pregnancy‑loss cases [4]. Supporters and legal analysts describe it as correcting situations where women were investigated or charged for pregnancy losses, not as a wholesale repeal of homicide or infanticide statutes [4] [6].
2. Why the “infanticide” headline spread — early wording and ambiguity
Early versions of the bill used broad language about “perinatal death” that some readers and critics said could be read too expansively; that ambiguity fueled viral claims that the measure would permit killing babies days after birth [3] [6]. Opponents and activist outlets amplified that interpretation, noting that “perinatal” in medical contexts can be defined as spanning late gestation through 28 days after birth — a technical definition invoked by critics to argue the bill had a dangerous gap [7] [8].
3. How legal experts and fact‑checkers responded
Law professors and multiple fact‑checking organizations rejected the infanticide claim. Reuters, AP, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact and AFP reported the claim as false or misleading and quoted criminal‑law experts who said homicide and infanticide remain separate, enforceable criminal offenses and that the bill would not immunize someone who intentionally killed a live, born infant [1] [3] [2] [9] [5]. Professors cited by Reuters and AFP explained the bill’s intent to prevent prosecutions tied to pregnancy loss and said the statute would not protect deliberate post‑birth killing [1] [5].
4. The amendments that narrowed the scope
Responding to the controversy, sponsors amended language to clarify the death must be “due to a pregnancy‑related cause,” which fact‑checkers said reduces the likelihood of misinterpretation and makes a murder defense unlikely to succeed on the statute’s terms [5]. Legal scholars cited by reporting said evidence of foul play would still allow investigation and prosecution under existing criminal law [9] [5].
5. Persistent political and advocacy framing
Despite clarifications, conservative outlets and advocacy groups continued to label the bill “infanticide,” often citing the medical definition of “perinatal” (through 28 days after birth) and warning of prosecutorial barriers to investigating infant deaths [10] [8] [7]. Those sources present a different narrative emphasizing worst‑case interpretations of statutory gaps; mainstream fact‑checks countered with statutory context and expert opinion [1] [2].
6. What remains true and what sources do not address
What is clear in legislative text and reporting: the bill targets prosecutions arising from pregnancy loss, aims to modify coroner duties, and was amended to tie protection to pregnancy‑related causes [4] [5]. Available sources do not mention the bill actually repealing homicide or infanticide statutes or creating a blanket immunity for intentional post‑birth killing; fact‑checkers and legal experts say those crimes remain separately defined and prosecutable [3] [2] [1].
7. Implications for readers evaluating future claims
Viral claims succeeded here by collapsing technical medical terms, early statutory drafts and political rhetoric into a simple, sensational headline. Readers should check the bill text and rely on multiple independent fact‑checks and law professors for interpretation; primary documents (the bill) and multiple reputable fact‑checks conclude the “infanticide up to 28 days” claim is misinformation [4] [1] [2].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the provided sources; local prosecutorial practice, later legislative action beyond the cited items, or subsequent court interpretations are not covered in these documents and therefore not addressed here [4].