California passed a bill legalizing infanticide up to 28 days after birth. Your state could be next.

1. What the bill text and amendments actually address

AB 2223 was introduced as a reproductive‑health measure and was amended to specify protections apply to “perinatal death due to a pregnancy‑related cause,” language its sponsor and outside legal scholars say is aimed at preventing criminalization of pregnancy loss — stillbirths and deaths tied to pregnancy complications — rather than creating a defense for homicide of a born infant ^{[4] [5]}.

2. Why “infanticide” became the dominant headline

Conservative outlets and advocacy groups amplified a plain‑language reading of early drafts and used the emotionally charged label “infanticide,” arguing that words like “perinatal” or removing mandatory investigations could be exploited to avoid police review; these interpretations were widely shared online and repeated in opinion pieces (California Globe, Daily Caller, Students for Life) ^{[6] [7] [8]}.

3. What independent fact‑checking and legal experts found

Multiple independent fact‑checks (Reuters, AP, AFP, FactCheck.org, Verify) reviewed the bill and legal context: they report the amendment clarifies the statute applies to pregnancy‑related outcomes, that homicide remains illegal under California law, and that the amendment is unlikely to shield someone who intentionally kills a newborn; law professors told Reuters the language “in no way protects someone who kills a 28‑day‑old baby” ^{[1] [9] [3] [10] [2]}.

4. Where the disagreement turns on ambiguity and enforcement

Critics point to vague statutory terms and removal of automatic investigative triggers as a risk, arguing prosecutors or coroners could be hampered in some cases — a pathway for continued skepticism even after amendments ^{[4] [11]}. Fact‑checkers counter that criminal statutes for murder and infanticide remain intact and that courts would not construe the pregnancy‑loss protection to permit post‑birth killings ^{[3] [1]}.

5. The broader political framing and incentives

Coverage and commentary around AB 2223 sit inside a polarized national debate on abortion rights. Supporters framed the bill as part of California’s broader effort to protect reproductive freedom and to prevent criminal penalties for people who suffer pregnancy loss; opponents used the “infanticide” label to mobilize voters and nationalize the story as an example of liberal excess ^{[12] [11] [6]}.

6. Could your state “be next”? How plausible is spillover?

Available sources do not mention specific plans by other states to pass identical language legalizing infanticide. Reporting shows similar misinfo cycles have occurred previously when language about pregnancy loss appeared in other jurisdictions, but fact‑checks consistently stress statutory context and existing homicide laws would constrain any putative “infanticide” reading ^{[13] [2] [1]}.

7. How to evaluate future claims and what to watch for

When you see headlines alleging “infanticide” from legislative text, check: (a) the exact statutory language (does it specify “pregnancy‑related” causes?), (b) whether criminal homicide statutes are being changed, and (c) what neutral fact‑checkers and law professors say; Reuters, AP and FactCheck.org each applied that method in this case and found the dramatic claim false ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

Limitations and takeaway

This analysis relies on contemporary reporting and multiple fact‑checks which consistently find AB 2223, as amended, does not legalize killing infants and does not create a legal shield for homicide ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Opponents continue to argue ambiguity could produce harmful consequences in some investigations; that viewpoint is reported in advocacy and opinion sources and should be weighed alongside the neutral fact‑checks ^{[4] [8]}.