At the time this book was in press, the bill known as the Born Alive Infants' Protection Act had still not come to the floor of either house of the Congress. Then came September 11th. With a new crisis at hand, focusing the national attention, everything else, not immediately connected to the problem of terrorism and homeland security, was pushed to the periphery. And yet, on March 12, 2002, the Judiciary Committee of the House brought the bill to the floor. Shorn of those “findings” that set forth the premises and the purposes of the bill, or the lessons it was meant to teach, the bill sailed through, on a voice vote, with no dissent recorded. Or so it appeared at the end of the day. But in the presentation of the bill, the real differences stirred by the bill broke to the surface. Jerrold Nadler had counseled his colleagues to avoid opposition to the bill, but he could not entirely resist waging the argument. He insisted that the bill was not needed because it merely reaffirmed a principle, “enshrined in the laws of all 50 States and unquestioned in law, that an infant who is born and is living independently of the birth mother is entitled to the same care as any other child.” He could claim then anew “that this bill has nothing to do with matters related to abortion.” And on that ground he would assure his colleagues that they could vote for the bill without threatening the “right to abortion.”