[Pharmboy]

Nope--with all due respect--it is you who should look again. This is the first line of the article: Case study one: a pregnant woman wants an abortion. Her husband doesn't. Should he have a say? Now please look at what I wrote. The writer is distorting the ruling--there was never any implied spousal consent or "say" for him in the case before Alito.

[Conservative Me]

Further down in the article it explains that the case was regarding a husband's right to notification. I agree the case study one phrase is misleading and has nothing to do with PPH vs. Casey.

[libertylover]

The article is not about the PA case that Alito heard, it's a broader discussion about the husband having a say or not. Since the article explores permission and not notification, perhaps the PA case should not have been mentioned at all. The fact that it was mentioned was an attempt to make it timely and, arguably, to distort the reader's view of Alito, and I think now that that was YOUR broader point.

But strictly in the part about Alito and husband notification, the writer correctly states that the case was merely about notification.

It's interesting that our discussion is a microcosm of the Alito/PA case, i.e., broad vs. narrow interpretation.