A Brilliant Defense.

On page four of this edition of the "pro-life newspaper of record," you'll read about many of the details along with the atmospherics that were a part of the November 8 oral hearings before the United States Supreme Court. At issue was a law that NRLC was able to pass over incredible oddsthe Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. That was possible for the same reason anything NRLC is able to accomplish is possible: grassroots pressure.

Speculation is rampant about how the two new justices will rule. While understandable, that's a colossal waste of time. All we can say for sure is thus far in their tenures on the bench, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito have both given every indication they are extremely thoughtful, considerate jurists.

Alito did not ask questions in the two challenges to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act heard last month. Roberts carefully prodded and probed, requiring the plaintiffs in the two cases and Solicitor General Paul Clement to fill in the gaps in their arguments.

What can we say, after listening to the oral arguments in Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, and reading the transcripts? Actually, much more than most media accounts caught.

Well, for starters, Paul Clement is the kind of litigator you definitely want on your side. Whereas lawyers for the plaintiffs occasionally stumbled, coming up with less than coherent responses to inquiries from the justices, Clement was unflappable, completely prepared for the rabbit trails various justices tried to lead him down. Even by the elevated standards of Supreme Court oral arguments, this was a tour de force.

Understand what the ban on partial-birth abortions is about. The Supreme Court still stubbornly protects the "right" to abortion. While the ban's sweep is narrow, it is critically important and furthers legitimate interests the Court has recognized in prior cases.

As Clement put it in his brief, "The Act implicates not only the government's compelling interest in protecting human life, but also the government's specific (and no less compelling) interest in prohibiting a particular type of abortion procedure that closely resembles infanticide." (Elsewhere he talks about maintaining the "bright line" between abortion and infanticide.)