How do California statutes compare to other states regarding neonatal end-of-life care and criminal liability for caregivers?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
California has recently moved to expand statutory protections that shield pregnant people and caregivers from civil or criminal liability tied to pregnancy outcomes and certain perinatal deaths, a stance that has prompted debate and fact-checking by multiple outlets; those protections sit alongside California’s permissive end-of-life statutes for competent adults but do not create a legal pathway to neonatal euthanasia as defined in medical ethics literature [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Across the United States statutory landscapes vary sharply: many states retain fetal‑homicide and coroner-duty provisions that can trigger criminal investigations after stillbirths, while others, like California, are actively narrowing the criminal exposure that advocates say deters care-seeking [6] [7] [8].
1. California’s statutory approach: broad immunity for pregnancy outcomes and targeted end‑of‑life rules
California’s legislative language in recent reproductive‑health bills and amendments includes provisions that a person “shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability” for actions or omissions tied to pregnancy outcomes and some perinatal deaths, a change framed by sponsors as protection against prosecutions for miscarriages, stillbirths or pregnancy‑related neonatal deaths and intended to prevent law‑enforcement‑led investigations stemming from pregnancy loss [1] [2] [6]. Separately, California’s End of Life Option Act provides a regulated statutory mechanism for competent, terminally ill adults to obtain life‑ending medication and explicitly shields certain third parties from liability when they are present at a lawful aid‑in‑dying death, but the law’s eligibility and procedural safeguards apply only to consenting adults and do not extend to neonates [3] [4].
2. How California compares to other states on criminal exposure after perinatal deaths
Unlike California’s recent statutory trend toward immunizing pregnancy‑related outcomes from prosecution, many states maintain fetal‑homicide statutes and statutory duties for coroners that can trigger investigations of stillbirths and early neonatal deaths—statutes that public‑health and reproductive‑rights advocates say have in some jurisdictions led to criminal referrals and prosecutions for pregnancy losses [6] [7]. Fact‑checking organizations and legal scholars have noted that California’s measures are relatively protective compared with states where prosecutors or coroners routinely investigate pregnancy losses, but they also caution that broad language can be subject to legal interpretation and would not necessarily immunize intentional, non‑pregnancy‑related homicide [7] [2].
3. Criminal liability for caregivers: protections, limits, and diversion mechanisms
California has created statutory pathways and proposals—such as primary caregiver diversion and criminal‑exposure limits—designed to avoid prosecuting caregivers for outcomes tied to pregnancy or caregiving decisions unless there is separate evidence of foul play, and these reforms mirror an advocacy goal to preserve clinical trust and prevent deterrence from seeking care [9] [1] [6]. At the same time, independent legal analyses cited by Reuters and FactCheck warn that statutory immunity tied to “perinatal” language was clarified in later amendments to avoid readings that would excuse intentional killing, indicating the legislature and commentators recognize limits to immunity and foresee prosecutors retaining authority where non‑pregnancy‑related criminal conduct is evident [2] [7].
4. Medical ethics context: neonatal euthanasia is ethically fraught and legally distinct
Clinicians and ethicists have long debated "neonatal euthanasia" and its moral and legal boundaries, noting that passive versus active end‑of‑life decisions for neonates occupy a contested space in professional guidelines from groups like the AMA and the AAP and in academic analyses of criminal liability for caregivers—literature that treats intentional life‑ending of newborns as morally and legally distinct from withholding futile treatment or pregnancy‑related loss protections [5] [10]. Current California statutory reforms address criminalization of pregnancy outcomes and adult aid‑in‑dying, but the medical‑ethical literature shows that the organized professional stance and legal frameworks do not equate those protections with authorization of active euthanasia for neonates [5] [10] [4].
5. Political debate, misinformation, and interpretive ambiguity
The reforms prompted vigorous political attacks alleging “infanticide,” charges that fact‑checkers at Reuters, AFP and FactCheck.org found misleading because the bills’ sponsors and legal experts framed them as preventing investigation and prosecution of pregnancy‑related losses and accidental perinatal deaths, not as creating carte blanche to kill newborns; fact‑checks also note that ambiguous early drafts sparked confusion and were subsequently narrowed or annotated in legislative and public explanations [11] [8] [7] [2]. Opponents have highlighted lingering definitional gaps (for example how long “perinatal” extends after birth) and the practical interplay with coroners’ duties in counties where sheriffs serve as coroners, underscoring how statutory text, local practice, and prosecutorial discretion determine outcomes on the ground [6] [11].
6. Bottom line: more protective than many states, but not a legal endorsement of neonatal euthanasia
California’s statutes and pending reforms place the state on the protective end of the spectrum regarding criminal liability tied to pregnancy outcomes and caregiver actions connected to perinatal deaths, and California’s adult end‑of‑life law provides regulated pathways for competent adults; however, neither the legislative record nor medical ethics literature supports claims that California law legalizes neonatal euthanasia, and legal experts caution that intentional homicide remains prosecutable where evidence supports it—leaving unresolved tensions about statutory language, coroner duties, and local practice that will shape real‑world effects [1] [2] [3] [5] [6].