<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">----- Forwarded Message ----<br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">From: "sccl@sclife.org" <sccl@sclife.org><br>To: SCCL E-mail Tree <sccl@sclife.org><br>Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 6:32:15 PM<br>Subject: Obama Says NRLC "Lying" as Cover-up Unravels<br><br><title>National Right to Life</title>
<style>
<!--h4
{margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:22.0pt;font-family:Arial;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-top:0in;}
h1
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:24.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";font-weight:bold;}
h3
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";font-weight:bold;}
span.contentsmall
{}
-->
</style>
<div><font face="Traditional Arabic">To: SCCL e-mail
tree</font></div>
<div><font face="Traditional Arabic">From: Holly Gatling,
Executive Director</font></div>
<div><font face="Traditional Arabic"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Traditional Arabic">This is a complex article. Here is the
bottom line. </font><font face="Traditional Arabic"> Barak Obama has
been trying desperately to cover up the fact that while he was an
Illinois state senator, he killed legislation that would protect
the life of a baby who survives</font><font face="Traditional Arabic"> an
abortion. Even Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton did not opposed the
virtually identical federal Born-Alive Infant Protection Act that was
signed into law by President Bush in 2002. On August 11, 2008, the
National Right to Life Committee published documentation of Obama's brazen
falsehoods perpetuated by his fawning media friends. Now Obama's cover up
is coming unraveled. For complete details see nrlc.org.</font></div>
<div><strong><font face="Courier New"></font></strong> </div>
<div><strong><font face="Courier New"></font></strong> </div><font face="Traditional Arabic"></font>
<table id="AutoNumber2" border="1" cellspacing="1" height="76" width="763">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="right" bgcolor="#fffff0" height="72" width="755"><img src="http://www.nrlc.org/WL/nrlcBannernobaby.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="90" width="587"></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table id="AutoNumber1" style="border-style: solid; border-color: rgb(192, 192, 192); border-collapse: collapse;" bgcolor="#c0c0c0" border="1" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" height="1" width="762">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border-style: none solid none none; border-right: 0.75pt solid; margin-left: 5px;" bgcolor="#ffffff" height="1" valign="top" width="588">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><strong><span style="color: black;">NRL Update: Monday, August 18,
2008</span></strong></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="4"><span style="font-weight: 700; color: black;">Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive
Abortion Survivors Continues <br>to Unravel After Sen. Obama Says NRLC is
"Lying"</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">By Douglas Johnson<br>NRLC Legislative
Director</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><strong style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="color: black;">WASHINGTON (August 18,
2008, Noon) -- Senator Barack Obama's four-year effort to
cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive
survivors of abortions continues to unravel.</span></strong></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><strong style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="color: black;">In the most recent
developments, Senator Obama himself, in a videorecorded interview Saturday
night with David Brody of CBN News (subsequently broadcast on both CBN and
CNN), said three times that National Right to Life was "lying" in
asserting that he had voted against a state bill virtually identical to
the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. He did not directly
address newly uncovered documents that had been released by NRLC on
August 11 -- documents that proved that he had done exactly that,
contradicting four years of the Obama cover
story.</span></strong></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">In response, on Sunday, August 17th, we issued a
challenge to Obama to either declare the newly discovered documents to be
forgeries and call for an investigation of the forgery, or admit that he
had misrepresented his record on the live-born infants legislation (not
just once, but for four years), and apologize to those he's called
liars.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">We don't have an apology yet. But now there is
this, in a news story posted on the New York Sun website lon the
evening of August 17th: <em>"Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his
position in the CBN interview on Saturday . . . [Obama's] campaign
yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the
state Senate . . ."</em></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;"><a rel="nofollow" title="http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/
CTRL + Click to follow link" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" href="http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/">http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/</a></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">Here is a summary of what came
before:</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">In Congress, from 2000-2002, while Barack Obama was
still a state senator in Illinois, we here in Washington, D.C., were
dealing with the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), a
project in which I was deeply involved. The original bill was a
simple two-paragraph proposal -- it established in black-letter law
that for all federal law purposes, any baby who was entirely expelled from
his or her mother, and who showed any of the specified signs of life, was
to be regarded as a legal person for however long he or she lived, and
that this applied whether or not the birth was the result of an abortion
or of spontaneous premature labor. NARAL immediately attacked the
bill as an assault on Roe v. Wade: "The Act would
effectively grant legal personhood to a pre-viable fetus -- in direct
conflict with Roe. . . . In proposing this bill, anti-choice lawmakers are
seeking to ascribe rights to fetuses 'at any stage of development,'
thereby directly contradicting one of Roe's basic tenets."
</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">See <a rel="nofollow" title="http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/NARALonlive-born.pdf" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" href="http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/NARALonlive-born.pdf">http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/NARALonlive-born.pdf</a></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">Nevertheless, the vast majority of "pro-choice" House
members -- including hard-core pro-abortion leaders such as Jerrold Nadler
-- were unwilling to extend the principles of Roe to living babies
entirely separate from their mothers. They rejected the NARAL claim
and voted for the bill; it passed the House 380-15. (Nothing like
that had ever happened to NARAL before.) But the bill was
killed in the Senate by an objection to unanimous
consent.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">In 2001, in Illinois, a bill was introduced in the
state Senate that was closely patterned on the federal BAIPA, to govern
constructions of state law. It contained an additional sentence,
which read, "A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully
recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the
law." (We'll call this the "immediate protection clause." It
really just repeated the substantive effect of the other
paragraphs.)</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">Obama voted against this bill in committee. On
the floor he gave a speech attacking it and a couple of other related
bills (the only such speech by any senator). Although the
speech was technically made during consideration of another bill, SB 1093,
Obama said that his reasons applied to SB 1095 (the BAIPA) as
well. He then voted "present." Voting "present" was a tactic
recommended by the local Planned Parenthood lobbyist; under an Illinois
constitutional provision a bill is deemed passed only if it receives an
absolute majority of the sworn members of the House or Senate, so the
operative effect of a "present" vote is the same as a "no" vote.
</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">The core of Obama's speech was the same as the 2000
NARAL attack at the federal level -- the bill violated Roe v. Wade because
it applied to "a pre-viable fetus." Here is what he
said:</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">“Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as
a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other
elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that
they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would
be provided to a -– a child, a nine-month-old –- child that was delivered
to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by
a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it –- it
would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does
not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this
would be an antiabortion statute.”</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">It did not seem to matter to Obama in
2001 (or to NARAL, in 2000) that the "fetuses" (sic) in question were
entirely born and alive. Because, you see, they were
"pre-viable," and these were abortions.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">The 2001 bill passed the Illinois Senate despite
Obama's objections, but died in a House committee.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">In Illinois, pretty much the same events repeated in
2002, although this time Obama voted "no" on the floor. Meanwhile,
in Washington, an additional clause was added to the federal bill, which
we call "the neutrality clause." (The "neutrality" clause read,
“Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or
contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the
species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined
in this section.”) We saw this clause as no substantive change -- it
merely made explicit the original scope of the bill.
Nevertheless, with the change, the bill passed without a dissenting vote
in either house of Congress, and was <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/index.html">signed
into law in 2002</a>. (To view the final federal BAIPA as
enacted, click <a rel="nofollow" title="http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/BAIPAFederal.pdf" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" href="http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/BAIPAFederal.pdf">here</a>. To
view a chronology of events pertaining to the federal BAIPA, click <a rel="nofollow" title="http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/TimelineFederalBAIPA.html" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" href="http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/TimelineFederalBAIPA.html">here</a>.)</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">But in Illinois, Obama kept fighting, now from a
chairman's chair. In 2003, the state bill was reintroduced in its
original form, but the chief sponsor also introduced "Senate Amendment No.
1," an amendment to remove the "immediate protection clause" and insert
the exact language of the new "neutrality clause" from the federal
bill. Adoption of "Senate Amendment No. 1" would transform the state
bill into a virtual clone of the now-enacted final federal bill/law.
Both the bill and the amendment were referred to a committee of which
Obama had just become chairman (the Democrats had taken majority
control of the Illinois Senate in January, 2003).</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">On March 12-13, 2003, Obama chaired a meeting of the
committee at which Senate Amendment No. 1 was adopted (with his
support, 10-0). This transformed the state bill into a virtual clone
of the federal bill; see them side-by-side <a rel="nofollow" title="http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/2003AmendedILBAIPAandFedBAIPA.html" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" href="http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/2003AmendedILBAIPAandFedBAIPA.html">here</a>.
Obama then led all of the committee's Democrats in voting to
kill the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4. (We didn't know about
this meeting until about two weeks ago.)</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">The very next year, the cover up
began.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">When Obama was running for the U.S. Senate in 2004,
his Republican opponent criticized him for supporting "infanticide."
Obama countered this charge by claiming that he had opposed the state
BAIPA because it lacked the pre-birth neutrality clause that had been
added to the federal bill. As the <em>Chicago
Tribune</em> reported on October 4, 2004, "Obama said that had he
been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state
version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state
version was not. . . . The difference between the state and federal
versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal
language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs.
Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that legalized
abortion."</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">Obama's explanation was false, but the local
newspapers did not uncover the March 13, 2003 records, and they accepted
the explanation uncritically. The Obama campaign has been
quoting the resulting stories ever since.</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">During
Obama's 2008 run for President, his campaign and his defenders have
asserted repeatedly and forcefully that it is a distortion, or even a
smear and a lie, to suggest that Obama opposed a state born-alive
bill that was the same as the federal bill. See, for example, <a rel="nofollow" title="http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaFactcheckOnBornAliveBills.mht
CTRL + Click to follow link" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" href="http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaFactcheckOnBornAliveBills.mht">this
June 30, 2008 "factcheck" issued by the Obama campaign</a>, in the
form that it still appeared on the Obama website on August 7, 2008.
The Obama "cover story" has often been repeated as fact, or at least
without challenge, in major organs of the news media. (Two recent
examples: <a rel="nofollow" title="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/30/sitroom.02.html
CTRL + Click to follow link" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/30/sitroom.02.html">CNN
reported on June 30, 2008</a>, "Senator Obama says if he had been in the
U.S. Senate in 2002, he, too, would have voted in favor of the Born Alive
Infant Protection Act because unlike the Illinois bill, it included
language protecting Roe v. Wade." The <em>New York Times</em>
reported in <a rel="nofollow" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/07/us/politics/07catholics.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=politics&adxnnlx=1218121316-TOu56PZCFJlbmJWZV/Pg9A&pagewanted=print)" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/07/us/politics/07catholics.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=politics&adxnnlx=1218121316-TOu56PZCFJlbmJWZV/Pg9A&pagewanted=print%29">a
story on August 7, 2008 </a>that Obama "said he had opposed the bill
because it was poorly drafted and would have threatened the Supreme Court
decision in <em>Roe v. Wade</em> that established abortion as a
constitutional right. He said he would have voted for a similar
bill that passed the United States Senate because it did not have the same
constitutional flaw as the Illinois bill.") </span></font></p>
<p><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">On August
11, 2008, we (the National Right to Life Committee) <a rel="nofollow" title="http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaCoverup.html" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" href="http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaCoverup.html">released recently
uncovered legislative documents</a> demonstrating that Obama had, in fact,
presided over the meeting at which the bill was transformed into a clone
of the federal bill, and then voted down. Although these documents
contradicted numerous emphatic statements by Obama and his campaign, only
some of which are referenced above, so far they have
been virtually ignored by mainstream news media.</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">On or about
August 14, the Obama campaign submitted to Eric Zorn of the Chicago
Tribune a "defense," <a rel="nofollow" title="http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/08/obama-answers-t.html#more
CTRL + Click to follow link" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" href="http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/08/obama-answers-t.html#more">which
on August 14 was posted on Zorn's blog</a>, which mostly repeated the old
Obama line and which did not specifically reference the documents released
by NRLC, but which did contain a new element: a purported
side-by-side comparison of the state and federal BAIPAs. The
comparison asserted that the "immediate protection clause" was still part
of the bill that Obama voted against (it was not -- <em>but why would that
clause bother him</em>?), and asserted that the "neutrality clause"
was merely a "failed amendment, not included in final legislation" (false
- it was adopted 10-0). The posting also contained many diversionary
provisions -- references to an entirely different bill, misleading
characterizations of an old, loophole-ridden Illinois law,
etc..</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="color: black;">On August
16, in a short interview with CBN News's David Brody, Obama was asked
about the growing controversy surrounding the National Right to Life
release. In his response, Obama asserted three times that we were
"lying." See it here: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/429328.aspx">http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/429328.aspx</a></span><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/429328.aspx"></a></font></p>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/429328.aspx"> </a><p><span style="color: black;"><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/429328.aspx"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"></font></a><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><a rel="nofollow" style="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/429328.aspx"><span style="color: black;">Late on August 17, the New York Sun posted </span></a><a rel="nofollow" title="http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" href="http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/">a
story</a> by staff political reporter Russell Berman, which said in
part: "Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the
CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported
'was not the bill that was presented at the state level.' His
campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical
bill in the state Senate . . ." </font></span></p>
<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"> </font><p><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2">The campaign then tried to shift to a new objection to the "identical
bill" -- that it "could have undermined existing Illinois abortion
law." Given the language of the final state bill, this claim is
absurd, unless Obama believed that "existing Illinois abortion law"
allowed for "abortions" to be carried to a lethal conclusion even
after a live birth. The newest line is also not
consistent with Obama's oft-stated excuse for opposing the state
legislation, and fails to explain his four years of
misrepresentation. </font></p>
<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"> </font><p><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2">Nor does the Sun story indicate that the Obama campaign has issued any
apology to NRLC, Bill Bennett, or the others who Senator Obama and his
campaign have been calling liars for saying what they now admit was the
truth.</font></p>
<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"> </font><p><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2">How to make sense of all this? All of Obama's misrepresentations
and contradictions on this issue have one common goal: to obscure
the position he actually articulated and acted on in 2001 through
2003. Obama explained in 2001 that he opposed the state bill to
protect born-alive infants because it would apply before the point of
long-term survivability -- so-called 'viability.' This is the same
objection that NARAL originally voiced to the federal bill, in 2000.
But that was exactly the point of the bill -- to make it clear that a
live-born baby was a legally protected person for as long as he or she
lived, whether for a day, an hour, or a minute. </font></p>
<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"> </font><p><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2">Neither the original version of the legislation, nor the final state
version that Obama killed in 2003, contained any language to protect
babies before the point of live birth. On the 2001 and 2002
state bills, Obama took to a position that already had been rejected by
the U.S. House 380-15 (in 2000). In 2003, Obama took a position on
the abortion-survivor legislation that was more extreme than any
member of Congress of either party.</font></p>
<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"> </font><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><strong style="font-weight: 400;">The Obama campaign and
its apologists are now asserting that the state Born-Alive Infants
Protection bill was part of a "package" of bills. This is an obvious
attempt to change the subject and avoid prolonged scrutiny of Obama's
record on the sole bill that has been the focus of the national debate,
that being the bill that was copied from the federal bill. In 2001-2003,
there were various bills in the Illinois Senate that dealt with the
procedures to be followed during very late abortions, but those bills each
had separate numbers, were each subject to separate amending processes,
and were (of course) each voted on separately. The 2003 Illinois
Born-Alive Infants Protection bill (SB 1082) could have been passed
regardless of what happened to the various abortion bills -- and SB 1082
would have passed the Illinois Senate in 2003, if Chairman Obama had not
killed it in his committee.</strong></font></p>
<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"> </font><p><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2">The Obama of 2001-2003 really did object to a bill merely because it
defended the proposition, "A live child born as a result of an abortion
shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
protection under the law." And it is that reality that he now
desperately wants to conceal from the eyes of the public.</font></p>
<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"> </font><p><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2">Douglas Johnson<br>Legislative Director<br>National Right to Life
Committee<br>202-626-8820<br><a rel="nofollow" title="mailto:Legfederal@aol.com" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" ymailto="mailto:Legfederal@aol.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:Legfederal@aol.com">Legfederal@aol.com</a><br><a rel="nofollow" title="http://www.nrlc.org/
CTRL + Click to follow link" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" href="http://www.nrlc.org/">http://www.nrlc.org</a></font></p>
<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"> </font><p><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2">Additional Resources:<br><br><a rel="nofollow" title="http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/index.html
CTRL + Click to follow link" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" href="http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/index.html">Index of Documents
Regarding Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill
</a> (will be updated as new items come in)</font></p>
<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"> </font><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><font face="Trebuchet MS"><a rel="nofollow" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" href="http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaCoverup.html"><font size="2">"Obama Cover-up Revealed On Born-Alive Abortion Survivors
Bill"</font></a><font size="2"> (August 11, 2008 NRLC release of newly
discovered legislative documents)</font></font></font></p>
<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"> </font><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><a rel="nofollow" title="http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/TimelineFederalBAIPA.html
CTRL + Click to follow link" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" href="http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/TimelineFederalBAIPA.html">Timeline
of important events in the history of the federal Born-Alive Infants
Protection Act</a></font></p>
<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"> </font><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><a rel="nofollow" title="http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/index.html
CTRL + Click to follow link" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" href="http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/index.html">NRLC
archive on the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act</a></font></p>
<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"> </font><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><a rel="nofollow" title="http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/NARALonliveborn.pdf
CTRL + Click to follow link" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" href="http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/NARALonliveborn.pdf">NARAL press
release, July 20, 2000, expressing strong opposition to the original
federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (H.R. 4292).</a></font></p>
<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"> </font><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2">The <a rel="nofollow" title="http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/BAIPA2001HJCreport.pdf
CTRL + Click to follow link" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;" target="_blank" href="http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/BAIPA2001HJCreport.pdf">official report
of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives,</a>
explaining the intent of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act
(H.R. 2175), and explaining why such legislation was necessary (August 2,
2001)</font></p></td>
<td style="border-style: none solid none none; border-right: 0.75pt solid;" bgcolor="#ffffff" height="1" valign="top" width="150">
<div align="center">
<table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="2" cellpadding="2" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><span lang="en-us"><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.nrlc.org/donations.htm"><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2"><span style="font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none;"><font title="http://www.nrlc.org/donations.htm
CTRL + Click to follow link" color="#cc0000">DONATE</font><font color="#336699"><br></font><font color="#000080">Help Support
NRLC</font></span></font></a></span></p></td></tr></tbody></table></div>
<p> </p></td></tr></tbody></table><br></div></div></div><br>
</body></html>