We've now all seen this quote from Judge Alito's dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, when that case was at the Third Circuit before it went up to the SCOTUS:
As Judge Alito reasoned, "[t]he Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems--such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition--that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion."
That legalese is interpreted in plainspeak on the flip...
In other words, Alito is saying, "Now, now little lady, just because your little brain believes ["perceives"] that having that baby will lead to, for example, personal financial ruin ["economic constraints"] doesn't mean that is REALITY, so you have to check with your husband first ["discussion"] because only HE is rational enough to know if that will indeed be the case. Because I am sure that AFTER you check with your husband, he will set you straight on the ACTUAL REALITY of the situation and you will of course realize that your fears are just utterly unfounded and not at all grounded in reality, so that you don't need ["obviated"] and won't get that abortion after all."
That quote about his basis for reasoning is that he believes absolutely that "Father Knows Best." Or that at the very least, Father Has the Absolute Right to Convince You That Father Knows Best.
Mom Does Not Get To Decide ANYTHING Unilaterally (after all, if she does not have a unilateral right to decide What Happens to Her BODY, then it sets up the argument that women do not have the right to decide anything else unilaterally, either...which is precisely what the wingnuts believe).
Slippery slope, here we come. Right to Privacy = No Such Thing.
One other thing -- remember this when you read Alito's legal opinions: As a lower court judge (Third Circuit), Alito was CONSTRAINED by BOTH Third Circuit and SCOTUS precedent. So look for the places where he said "screw it" ANYWAY to such precedent. As a SCOTUS judge, he is constrained only by SCOTUS precedent....which gives them much more leeway for getting "activist" and scaling back or eliminating SCOTUS precedent (and why blanket questions to a lower court judge such as "do you believe in stare decisis" are somewhat useless). That is why lower court opinions are NOT DISPOSITIVE in knowing how a SCOTUS nominee will rule when they in fact get to that highest court.