I think the headline and premise of your article and what you claimed in your post is faulty. Jmo. I don't believe the law is intended to legalize what you claim... It sounds like maybe there are loop holes that could be argued in a court of law that makes what you said possible, but maybe it could also be argued in a court of law that it was not possible. Idk.
The original text of the bill said a women would not be held liable or penalized for a perinatal death. That extremely vague. If it's not the intention of the bill then they should word the bill as they intended. This is how we get so many loop holes in our laws. Wicks seemed to be mad when called out on this. It has since been changed to say 'perinatal death due to pregnancy-related cause.' This is why checks and balances is important. If this bill were not allowed to be challenged, murdering a newborn would be legal in California.
