I was all ready to read that this guy had voted against abortion altogether. Instead, here's what he voted for in 1991's Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

That provision required a married woman to notify her spouse if she was planning to have an abortion unless she swore that her spouse was not the father of the child, her husband could not be located after diligent effort, the pregnancy was a result of a sexual assault that had been reported to the authorities, or she had reason to believe that notification would likely result in infliction of bodily injury.

Um...okay. Someone please tell me what's so unreasonable about this? The majority ruling in the case made this argument, which ultimately prevailed:

The majority of the Casey judges, taking account of the "real world consequences of forced notification," concluded that "because of the nature of the marriage relationship and the emotional character of the human response to pregnancy and abortion, the number of different situations in which women may reasonably fear dire consequences from notifying their husbands is potentially limitless."

Hmm, here's a thought...if you can't tell your husband that you're pregnant with his child without fearing for your life, maybe...just maybe, you shouldn't be married to him. Please don't tell me that women are locked into horrible marriages with no choices. That may have been true 50 years ago, but not anymore. No, it's never easy to leave a psychopath...you'll need a restraining order and legal and psychological help (there are charities and government agencies to help you here)...but by gosh, you did marry a psychopath.

So if the judges concluded that the majority of notifications would be fine, why rule based on a minority of severely dysfunctional relationships that women are capable of ending? Of course the law is supposed to protect the rights of everyone, not just the majority, but we're not talking about people here who have absolutely no options.