By The Craig Bushon Show
The Truth Is Not Hate Speech
America is once again locked in a debate that cuts deeper than politics. This is not simply about abortion. It is about whether the law still draws an unmistakable moral and legal line once a child is born alive.
Pro-life advocates say that line is being blurred. Pro-choice lawmakers say that accusation is false and inflammatory. As journalists, our responsibility is to step past the rhetoric and examine what the law actually says, how it is being applied, and where reasonable Americans are right to feel uneasy.
This investigation looks at both sides of that argument and then places the U.S. debate in a global context most Americans never hear.
Pro-life organizations, including the American Center for Law and Justice, argue that a wave of recent state legislation has created dangerous ambiguity around infant protections. Their concern is not rooted in one viral headline, but in cumulative legal changes that alter criminal liability, investigative requirements, and statutory language surrounding infant deaths.
In California, critics point to AB 2223, signed by Gavin Newsom, which provides criminal immunity to mothers for pregnancy-related outcomes, including deaths during the “perinatal” period. Pro-life attorneys argue that replacing narrower terms like “prenatal” with broader medical language invites confusion and weakens safeguards after birth.
Washington state has drawn similar scrutiny after repealing long-standing concealment-of-birth statutes and narrowing circumstances under which infant deaths must be investigated. Pro-life advocates argue these provisions once served as backstop protections for newborns, and that removing them shifts the balance away from the child.
The argument from the pro-life side is straightforward: when the law hesitates to investigate infant death or expands immunity without crystal-clear boundaries, it sends the wrong signal about whose life takes priority.
Supporters of these laws push back hard, and on several key points, their rebuttal matters.
They correctly note that no U.S. state law explicitly permits infanticide. Once a child is born alive, homicide statutes apply in all 50 states. Killing a newborn is murder. That is settled law.
They also argue that these statutes were written to address a real problem: the criminalization of miscarriage, stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy, and medical emergencies. In recent years, women have been investigated and, in some cases, prosecuted following tragic pregnancy outcomes. Lawmakers say these laws exist to prevent that injustice, not to protect violence.
They further emphasize that “perinatal” is a medical term, not a legal loophole, and that no court has interpreted these statutes as allowing harm to infants after birth.
On paper, that defense holds. There is no statute that plainly authorizes killing a born child.
But investigative journalism does not stop at what the law claims to intend. It asks how laws function in practice, how ambiguity is resolved, and who bears the risk when clarity is lacking.
To understand why this debate unsettles so many Americans, it helps to look beyond U.S. borders.
Consider Europe’s two most restrictive abortion regimes: Malta and Poland.
By European standards, both are extreme outliers.
Malta effectively prohibits abortion in nearly all circumstances. A narrow life-saving exception added in 2023 allows termination only when the woman’s life is in immediate danger or her health faces grave jeopardy likely leading to death. Even then, three specialists must agree, alternative treatments must be exhausted, and fetal non-viability must be confirmed. There are no exceptions for rape, incest, fetal anomalies, or socioeconomic hardship.
Only a handful of legal terminations have occurred under this exception.
Yet once a child is born alive in Malta, the law is unambiguous. Full legal personhood applies immediately. Wilful homicide carries life imprisonment. Withholding care from a newborn is treated as homicide or criminal neglect. No carve-outs. No gray zones.
Poland’s framework is marginally less restrictive on paper but still among the harshest in Europe. Abortion is permitted only in cases of rape or incest, or when the woman’s life or health is threatened. A 2020 constitutional ruling removed fetal anomaly as a legal ground, resulting in a near-total ban in practice.
Here too, the post-birth line is unmistakable. Once born alive, a child is fully protected under homicide law. Poland even has a specific infanticide statute recognizing postpartum distress, but it does not excuse killing a newborn. It merely mitigates sentencing in rare cases. Outside that narrow context, murder charges apply.
This comparison matters.
In both Malta and Poland—despite their extreme pre-birth restrictions—there is no serious legal debate about whether infants born alive are protected. European law treats live birth as the bright line. Period.
That clarity exposes the real problem in the American debate.
The issue is not that the United States has legalized infanticide. It has not.
The issue is that some U.S. laws introduce ambiguity where none should exist, even compared to Europe’s most restrictive regimes.
When federal efforts to reinforce born-alive protections stall procedurally under Senate leadership, including Chuck Schumer, it deepens public mistrust—even if supporters argue those protections already exist elsewhere in law.
This is not about accusing lawmakers of endorsing infanticide. It is about recognizing that law is as much about signals and incentives as it is about intent.
From this show’s perspective, one principle should unite Americans across political lines: once a child is born alive, the law should leave no daylight. No ambiguity. No semantic debates. No uncertainty about whether an investigation will occur.
If lawmakers truly believe infants are fully protected, they should welcome statutory language that makes those protections explicit, redundant, and impossible to misinterpret.
A culture confident in its moral footing does not fear clarity.
Bottom line:
No, America has not legalized infanticide. But yes, some recent laws have introduced ambiguity where none should exist. Europe’s strictest abortion regimes show that moral clarity after birth is possible—even in deeply divided societies. When it comes to newborn life, ambiguity is not compassion. It is risk. And a society that hesitates to draw a firm line in defense of its most vulnerable is a society flirting with moral drift.
We don’t just follow the headlines.
We read between the lines—to get to the bottom line of what’s really going on.
Disclaimer:
This op-ed reflects the editorial perspective of The Craig Bushon Show and is intended for commentary, analysis, and public discussion. It is not legal advice. Laws and interpretations discussed herein may evolve, vary by jurisdiction, or be subject to judicial review. Readers are encouraged to consult primary legal sources and qualified professionals for authoritative guidance.
