Four Dangerous State Bills Paving the Path to Infanticide
Listen tothis article
Across the country, a troubling trend is emerging. In the wake of Dobbs and the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the abortion debate obviously didn’t end – it intensified and shifted to the state level. Now, radical-Left state legislatures are emboldened, believing they have a license to advance bills that, under the guise of “reproductive freedom,” are quietly dismantling protections for babies – even after birth.
The ACLJ is actively engaged in exposing and opposing these efforts. Take action with us and sign the petition: End Infanticide – Protect Babies Born Alive.
Here’s a breakdown of four alarming laws that are paving the path to infanticide.
Maryland’s Effort To Shield Infanticide From Investigation
Maryland’s H.B. 1131 represents one of the most dangerous developments yet. As we said in our testimony before the Maryland State legislature, this bill would “effectively legalize infanticide.”
This bill would restrict medical professionals from reporting infant deaths unless there is “clear evidence of external abuse” or “independent evidence” of criminal conduct unrelated to the “pregnancy loss.”
The bill penalizes medical professionals who report suspected wrongdoing, effectively discouraging the reporting of possible criminal conduct and shielding those responsible from scrutiny. And if a healthcare provider isn’t certain the evidence meets the bill’s vague standard, what happens then? The safest option becomes silence.
The bill also ties law enforcement’s hands, prohibiting investigations into a “pregnancy loss” unless there is already “independent evidence of criminal conduct unrelated to the pregnancy or the pregnancy loss.” But isn’t the purpose of investigations to discover that evidence?
As a result, any deaths related to “pregnancy loss,” including deaths during labor – a period that can extend even after a child is born – would be shielded from investigation.
This creates a window in which a baby born alive could die, or be intentionally killed, without triggering mandatory reporting or investigation.
California: Legal Ambiguity That Risks Shielding Infant Deaths From Proper Investigation
California’s Assembly Bill 2223, which was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, follows a similar pattern but operates through legal ambiguity.
The bill prohibits criminal or civil liability for actions related to “pregnancy outcomes,” including “perinatal death”– a term that can extend weeks after birth.
It has been clear from the beginning that the purpose of AB 2223 is to shield individuals, especially abortion providers, from civil or criminal liability when a baby is born alive after a botched abortion – and then left to die. In order to achieve this goal, the bill prohibits coroners’ reports related to the deaths of infants in the ‘perinatal’ period from being used to bring civil or criminal charges against anyone.
By replacing the word “prenatal,” which means before birth, with the word “perinatal,” which includes the period of up to 28 days after birth, this bill effectively legalizes infanticide.
After an outcry over the use of “perinatal,” California didn’t remove “perinatal death” from the bill — it narrowed it to deaths caused before birth by adding the phrase “due to causes that occurred in utero.” But even after amendments, the core issue remains unresolved: The law fails to clearly define the line between abortion and the death of a child after birth, effectively creating a legal shield around those deaths.
Washington: Removing Protections for Newborns
Washington’s Senate Bill 5093 takes a different but equally concerning approach.
The bill repeals laws criminalizing the concealment of a child’s birth and removes the requirement for coroners to investigate certain infant deaths tied to abortion.
This law plays a vital role in protecting both mothers and infants from abuse, violence, and exploitation. Its removal opens the door for infanticide to be carried out without fear of legal consequence. . . Further, instead of bolstering investigations into suspicious infant deaths, SB5093 removes the coroner’s jurisdiction to investigate the death of an infant after a botched abortion.
Meaning: Deaths of infants born alive after failed abortions may not be investigated, individuals involved could avoid accountability, and existing safeguards for vulnerable newborns are weakened.
By removing these protections, the bill “opens the door” to infanticide without legal consequence.
This is not merely a policy shift – it is a fundamental redefinition of when legal protection begins.
Minnesota: Lowering the Standard of Care for Born-Alive Infants
One of the most significant and concerning policy shifts took place in Minnesota under Governor Tim Walz. For decades, Minnesota law clearly recognized that a child born alive – even after a failed abortion – was entitled to full legal protection and lifesaving medical care.
That standard has now changed.
In 2023, Minnesota lawmakers repealed the requirement that doctors take “reasonable measures” to preserve the life of a born-alive infant. In its place, the law now requires only that the infant be “cared for” – a subtle but critical shift.
ACLJ Senior Litigation Counsel Olivia Summers pointed out:
Whereas Minnesota’s prior law affirmatively required medically appropriate, lifesaving care for infants born alive after abortion attempts, the new law does not. Instead, it requires only that an infant be ‘cared for’ – a deliberate downgrade in legal obligation. . . . The new standard was meant to require ‘comfort care,’ not lifesaving treatment. That distinction matters. Comfort care may temporarily ease suffering, but it does nothing to preserve life.
This change is not merely technical – it fundamentally alters how the law treats infants who survive abortion attempts. Under the new standard, that obligation for full protection is no longer explicit.
As a result, living infants could be denied lifesaving intervention.
And we know what former Virginia Governor Ralph Northam revealed in a 2019 interview:
“When we talk about third trimester abortions . . . If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother.”
The blueprint on how to deny born-alive babies lifesaving actions is not new.
Minnesota’s law follows that pattern at the state level – one in which legal protections for newborns are being quietly weakened through changes in policy language.
The Same Dangerous Path
These bills may take different paths, but they all lead to the same dangerous place: a legal system where babies born alive are no longer guaranteed protection. Whether by blocking investigations, creating legal ambiguity, removing safeguards, or lowering standards of care, these laws erode the most basic duty of government – to protect life. The ACLJ is fighting back at every level, but we cannot do it alone. If we fail to act now, the line between abortion and infanticide will continue to blur.
Help us defend the most vulnerable when they need it most. Sign the petition: End Infanticide – Protect Babies Born Alive.