YOU CLERKED FOR JUSTICE BREYER, AND THAT WAS THE SAME YEAR THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED ITS DECISION IN STENBERG VERSUS CARHART, CASE WITH THE SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S. STRUCK DOWN AN NEBRASKA LAW PROHIBITING PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE BABY POSED A THREAT TO THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER. TO BE CLEAR, THE LAW PROHIBITED A PROCEDURE WHERE THE ABORTIONIST CAUSES AN UNBORN BABY TO BE PARTIALLY DELIVERED BY THE MOTHER, AND THEN THE ABORTIONIST INTENTIONALLY KILLS THE BABY OUTSIDE THE WOMB BY PUNCTURING ITS SCHOOL WITH SCISSORS AND THEN COLLAPSING THE -- PUNCTURING THE SKULL WITH SCISSORS AND THEN COLLAPSING IT. IT IS GRUESOME, AND I DO NOT LIKE REPORTING IT BUT IT IS RELEVANT. JUSTICE KENNEDY DESCRIBED IT THIS WAY IN HIS ASCENT, DESCRIBING WHEN SCISSORS ARE INSERTED INTO THE BACK OF THE HEAD, THE FETUS UPON BODY IS OUTSIDE OF THE WOMEN'S BODY AND ALIVE AND REACTS, GOES STARTLED, AND THEN GOES LIMP. JUSTICE SCALIA, IN HIS GREAT ELOQUENCE, EXPRESSED, LAMENTED THE RULING BUT ALSO EXPRESSED OPTIMISM TO THE FACT FUTURE COURTS WOULD GET IT RIGHT, SAYING, "I AM OPTIMISTIC ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THAT ONE DAY STENBERG VERSUS CARHART WILL BE ASSIGNED ITS RIGHTFUL PLACE IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COURT." THIS METHOD OF KILLING A HUMAN CHILD, ONE CANNOT EVEN ACCURATELY SAY AN ENTIRELY UNBORN HUMAN CHILD, PRESCRIBED BY THIS STATUTE IS SO HORRIBLE THAT THE MOST CLINICAL DESCRIPTION OF IT EVOKES A SHUTTER OF REVULSION. A FEW YEARS LATER, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ISSUED A DIFFERENT RULING. THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED A DIFFERENT RULING IN A CASE CALLED GONZALEZ VERSUS CARHART, WHICH UPHELD A DIFFERENT STATUTE, THIS ONE FEDERAL RATHER THAN ESTATE, BUT IT WAS A DIFFERENT FEDERAL STATUTE, A FEDERAL STATUTE THAT ALSO PROHIBITED PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION. JUDGE JACKSON, CAN YOU DISTINGUISH THESE CASES FOR ME? WHAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GONZALEZ VERSUS CARHART WITH THE PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN IN QUESTION WAS UPHELD OR STENBERG VERSUS CARHART, IT WAS INVALIDATED? JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. I DO NOT HAVE THE OPINIONS IN FRONT OF ME. I THINK IT HAD TO DO WITH THE METHOD OF EXTRACTION, THE FACT-FINDING RELATED TO THE PROCEDURE. IN ONE CASE, THE DISTRICT COURT HAD MADE SOME FINDINGS AND THE COURT FELT FOUND BY THEM. IN ANOTHER, THERE WAS CONSIDERATIONS BEYOND THOSE THAT THEY PREVIOUSLY RELIED UPON. SO THERE WERE DISTINCTIONS THAT THE COURT LOOKED AT AND CONSIDERED IN THE CASES. YES. ...