….Kathleen Domingo, executive director of the conference, explained to CNA that the group “is not in favor of AB 2223. We are currently neutral on the bill, following lobbying with the author about the language in the bill specific to the claims of ‘infanticide’.”
“Early in the legislative session, we decided not to simply oppose the bill but to aggressively seek to have the most egregious part of the bill language amended, which could only happen if we agreed to remove our opposition and go neutral once the language was amended. After two different rounds of amendments, our attorneys and consultants agreed that we were satisfied with the change to that specific language. And so we kept our promise.”
Domingo said that “using the term infanticide was appropriate before the amendment was made,” but “Now that the change is in place, the door has been closed on infanticide….”
The above comes from a July 18 story in the National Catholic Register.
I’m withdrawing my opposition to the Third Reich. All they want is Czechoslovakia (and maybe Poland). I mean, I’m not for them invading, but I’m not going to oppose it.
Peace for our time.
I’m not buying her bill of goods at all.
Infanticide is still unpopular in California. If the CCC got the removal of the language, which is in the politicians’s best interest, then the CCC can agree to change its position from “aggressively seek to change” to merely “oppose.”
This woman needs to be fired for giving horrendously bad political advice.
So they made a political calculation, saying in effect that they wouldn’t oppose the bill if the ambiguous language that could have supported infanticide was removed.
Watch out who you get into bed with, especially if they are Democrats. How many Catholic institutions now have to provide medical benefits to same-sex partners of employees because the Church made similar compromises and political calculations in the past?
The bottom line is that the Church is on record as not opposing a law in favor of abortion.
Let me get this straight. No to failed abortion post-live birth, but “neutral” on barbaric second and third trimester killings? Did I miss something?
“Domingo said that
“using the term infanticide was appropriate before the amendment was made,”
but “Now that the change is in place,
the door has been closed on infanticide….”
Was : “perinatal death due to a pregnancy-related cause.”
Now is: “perinatal death due to causes that occurred in utero.”
How does the change prevent infanticide?
What is infanticide ? – killing of an 8-9 month baby –
who would be able to survive outside the womb without special equipment ?
hardly a “fetus” at that stage.
But there is no limit on duration of pregnancy. for the abortion
A full term baby can be aborted.
So, how does that prevent infanticide?
And their only concern is a full term baby?
California Law limits abortion to before fetal viability except in cases of maternal health.
This bill does not change that.
Is this what you are referring to:?
AB-2223 Reproductive health.(2021-2022)
SEC. 6. Section 123466 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
123466. The state may shall not deny or interfere with a pregnant person’s right
to choose or obtain an abortion prior to viability of the fetus,
or when the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant person.
Note: ( “woman” has been changed to “pregnant person” )
Will the law go to a ballot or just be enacted by the California Congress ?
Currently, California law says post-viability abortions are “unauthorized” if “both of the following are established:
(1) In the good faith medical judgment of the physician, the fetus was viable.
(2) In the good faith medical judgment of the physician, continuation of the pregnancy posed no risk to life or health of the pregnant woman.”
First of all, there’s no punishment for an “unauthorized” abortion. Second of all, an abortionist would have to affirmatively make two medical judgements in order to violate the law. As long as he doesn’t make medical judgements about the viability of the baby and the elective nature of the abortion, a purely elective abortion of a viable baby is authorized under California law.
It means abortions are illegal after about the 5th month except for the health of the mother.
According to capradio, a fetus becomes considered viable in Ca at 24 weeks or 500 grams. After that, abortion is illegal in CA.
No, if the baby is viable AND the abortionist makes two medical judgements – 1) that the abortion is purely elective and 2) that the baby is, in his opinion, viable – then the abortion is “unauthorized.” “Unauthorized” is not a crime. It’s just unauthorized, which means pretty much nothing.
See: California Code, Health and Safety Code – HSC § 123468
If the baby is viable which in California is considered 24 weeks, an abortion may only be performed to protect the mother’s life or health.
Yes, people can break the law and not have a legal consequence.
As in the states where abortion is illegal.
wait ’till Kathleen Domingo meets El Domingo.
she’ll have some ‘splainin’ to do.
Or maybe El Diablo?
How can Kathleen Domingo and the CCC members live with themselves?
I can’t tell how relieved I am over K. Domingo’s clarification. Now I can sleep at night (sigh…) However, if she has any conscience, I doubt she will be able.
Thank goodness people more intelligent and knowledgeable and more holy than I am make these decisions for me.