The executive director of a law firm trying to stop a California bill he says will allow infanticide has criticized billboards paid for by the California governor’s campaign. Gavin Newsom which favor Abortion with biblical quotes.
Newsom, a Democrat, announced on September 16 that he had launched the billboards in Texas, Indiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and three others in what he called “the most anti-abortion states”. restrictive”.
Billboards encourage women to have abortions in California, some including a Bible verse from Mark 12:31, in which Jesus is quoted as saying, “Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no greater commandment than these.
“To any woman seeking an abortion in these anti-freedom states: [California] will defend your right to make decisions about your own health,” Newsom wrote on Twitter alongside images of each billboard’s designs.
The move was denounced by Jordan Sekulow, executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice, a constitutional law firm urging Newsom not to sign an abortion bill, AB 2223, which went to his desk.
“Governor Newsom has taken it upon himself to be America’s abortion ambassador, inviting others to come to California for abortions,” Sekulow said. wrote in a blog post.
“But while it’s abhorrent to post billboards in other states, it goes even further into pure evil,” he added. “The most depraved part is that the same billboards quote and twist the words of Jesus Christ to promote the killing of unborn children through abortion.”
Sekulow said he finds it “hard to imagine” that Newsom loves God when he “advocates the legal killing of babies after they are born.”
“And that is certainly not loving your neighbour. These babies are our neighbors. Yet Newsom is pushing horrific new extreme abortion bills,” Sekulow said, referring to an abortion bill awaiting the Democratic governor’s signature.
California bill ‘will allow certain forms of infanticide’
In a letter of August 31 (pdf) to Newsom, Sekulow said AB 2223 will, if signed, change California law “in a way that radically undermines the protection of newborns” and, unless changed, ” will allow certain forms of infanticide”.
Introduced by Assemblyman Buffy Wicks, The law project would remove from existing law the requirement for a county coroner to conduct inquests to investigate perinatal deaths “related to or resulting from a known or suspected voluntary or criminal abortion.”
Under the law, if a person refuses or fails to care for an infant – what a coroner could consider an “unattended fetal death” – whether that infant was full term, premature or born alive but If he subsequently dies for lack of care, the person would be immune from any civil or criminal liability or penalty, no matter what the coroner finds.
The bill further states that it would “remove the requirement” for a coroner to treat “an unattended fetal death” as an “unattended death.”
Under the legislation, immunity from criminal or civil liability extends to any “act or omission of the mother in relation to her pregnancy or the actual, potential or suspected outcome of her pregnancy, including miscarriage, stillbirth , abortion or perinatal death due to causes that occurred in utero.
The wording of the clause is particularly glaring to Sekulow, as the scope of “pregnancy outcome” would include whether a newborn died for any reason during the “perinatal” period, which extends 28 days after birth, including understood if a newborn is left to die after a failed abortion.
“In other words, it could effectively legalize infanticide up to twenty-eight days after the baby is born (the perinatal period) ‘for any reason,'” Sekulow wrote.
Sekulow said the “odious language” remained unchanged in the bill throughout the amendment process. He added that there had been a “complete refusal” by California lawmakers “to remove the term ‘perinatal'” from the bill.
“It is now abundantly clear that this denial is intentional and not due to a misinterpretation of the term,” he said.
Ambiguous language “occurring in utero”
After the American Center for Law and Justice conducted a legal analysis of the bill, Sekulow noted another part of the wording of this bill clause for ambiguity: “occurred in utero.”
Sekulow said the ambiguity in the bill’s wording leaves it open to interpretation that allows doctors to claim an infant’s death was ‘due to’ something that happened in utero or before. birth, and that the law would “effectively prohibit” any investigation to verify these claims. .
“People would be protected whether the child’s death was caused by their actions or omissions in relation to their pregnancy and their care of the child born alive,” he said.
The attorney accused the California legislature of “attempting to protect women” and those who assist them in “self-performing” abortions, from having to provide medical care to “babies born alive after botched abortions.”
“California law provides, ‘[t]The rights to medical treatment of a child born prematurely alive during an abortion will be the same as the rights of a child of similar medical status born prematurely spontaneously,” he said.
“This law would negate, sub silento, those protections and create an underclass of newborn human beings by taking away their right not only to medical care, but to life.”
Foreign tragedies under similar laws
Under the California bill, women would not need to see a doctor in person to access abortion pills or undergo a prenatal test to determine the true stage of pregnancy.
In her letter to Newsom, Sekulow cited how, under similar laws in the UK, an East Yorkshire woman took an abortion pill known as mifepristone at 30 weeks pregnant, believing she was 12 weeks pregnant. The child was born in a hospital toilet and despite medical attention died four days later. An investigation into the incident revealed that the woman had not received the appropriate prenatal tests, The Daily Mail reported.
New Zealand passed an abortion law in 2020 with similarities to California’s AB 2223. It has been described as the “most liberal” abortion law in the country, allowing abortions up to 20 weeks without seeing a doctor.
A right-wing lawmaker tried to insert an amendment into this legislation to make it a legal requirement to provide medical care to any infant born alive from a failed abortion. New Zealand’s leftist government voted 80–37 against him, including Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.
The following year, an infant lay breathless for two hours before dying after an unsuccessful late-term abortion at 21 weeks, according to Voice for Life, the nation’s oldest pro-life organization, which reported eyewitness testimony from a health care student who was allegedly traumatized after witnessing it.
The Epoch Times has requested comment from Newsom’s office.