Which reputable fact-checkers and primary sources have evaluated the claim that California permits infanticide up to 28 days?

1. Which fact‑checkers reviewed the claim and what they found

Reuters’ Fact Check examined the language and legislative history and reported the bill “does not legalize infanticide,” noting law professors consulted said an amended version clarified the text to avoid immunizing criminal conduct and that opponents’ “infanticide” label reflected early vagueness rather than the final scope ^{[1] [6]}. The Associated Press fact‑checked social posts and quoted legal experts who said even before the amendment homicide laws would still apply, so the bill could not lawfully permit killing an infant ^[2]. AFP similarly concluded that the amendment makes clear the statute is unrelated to infanticide and that interpreting it otherwise “requires extraordinary creative license” according to a UC Davis law professor ^[3]. FactCheck.org summarized that the confusion arose from an earlier draft and emphasized that authorities would still investigate evidence of foul play ^[4]. PolitiFact likewise ruled the idea the bill would allow mothers to kill newborns is incorrect and reported the sponsor’s intent was protecting those who experience pregnancy loss ^[5].

2. Primary sources and legal context those fact‑checks relied upon

The fact‑checks focused on AB 2223’s text — especially the originally worded Section 7(a) that used terms like “perinatal death” — and on subsequent amendments that narrowed the language to “perinatal death due to a pregnancy‑related cause,” as well as official statements from the bill’s sponsor, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, explaining the bill’s purpose to avoid prosecutions for miscarriage or stillbirth ^{[6] [7] [5]}. Legal scholars interviewed by Reuters, AFP and FactCheck.org explained that homicide and infanticide remain separately defined offenses in California criminal law and that statutory interpretation principles make it unlikely the bill would bar prosecution where there is evidence of intentional killing ^{[6] [3] [4]}.

3. Why the claim spread and the counterarguments from advocacy and political sources

The “infanticide” framing originated with activist and media outlets that highlighted the earlier, broader draft language and with groups such as the California Family Council and some conservative commentators who argued the bill would prevent coroners or police from investigating suspicious infant deaths — framing intended to mobilize opposition and tap into political anxieties about abortion and parental rights ^{[8] [9]}. The California Catholic Conference initially described the proposed legislation as an “infanticide bill” but later said it would “remain neutral” after amendments narrowed the language, showing how advocacy groups used the early text to press a moral argument even as lawmakers revised the bill ^{[1] [7]}. Fact‑checkers noted those political claims often overstated the legal effect and relied on hypotheticals rather than the amended statutory language ^{[1] [4]}.

4. Remaining uncertainties and why careful reading matters

While major fact‑checks converge that the bill did not legalize infanticide and that criminal homicide statutes would still apply, they also flagged legitimate public‑policy concerns about vague drafting and the initial failure to define “perinatal,” which allowed opponents to plausibly claim unintended consequences until amendments clarified the scope ^{[6] [3] [4]}. Reporting by outlets like the California Globe and advocacy groups continued to press worst‑case interpretations after amendments, illustrating how unclear legislative language can fuel misinformation even when later legal analysis disproves the most extreme claims ^[8]. The available fact‑checks and primary legislative texts cited above are the record used by reporters and legal scholars to evaluate the claim; if additional legislative changes occurred after these reviews, that would require fresh analysis ^{[1] [6] [5]}.