A bit ago, Sen. Durbin asked Brett Kavanaugh about his legal reasoning in the only abortion ruling he's ever issued: His dissent in Garza v. Hargan, (bit.ly/2oKhvay), where Kavanaugh argued for further delay of the abortion sought by a detained undocumented minor.
That minor, Jane Doe, obtained private funding and a judicial bypass (court order) allowing her to get an abortion. But Kavanaugh today said his dissent considered parental consent laws intended to help minors make their abortion decisions.
That is obfuscation: A Yale-trained lawyer and judge like Kavanaugh surely knows that judicial bypass exists *as the alternative to* parental consent. If a minor can't/doesn't want to ask a parent, they go to court. Jane Doe had gotten that bypass. Simple.
But Kavanaugh's Garza dissent, and his summary of it in today's hearing, shows his willingness to shoehorn precedent to facilitate ruling against abortion access.
The question then is: How likely is it that he would engage in similar legal reasoning gymnastics when other abortion questions, or Roe itself, come before the Supreme Court?
For more on this, see this smart @LeahLitman thread
