As I heard it the law was vague about what the standard was. Some justices wanted to impose a tighter standard that was not in the wording of the law. He voted against doing so, since that would be legislating from the bench and suggested the legislature should clarify it, not the court. If that is what actually happened, then it hardly makes him pro-abortion.
No, Gonzales and his fellow judges lowered the standard to get a judicial bypass by overturning a lower court ruling prohibiting to the minor that brought the suit and forced the legislature to rewrite the law to make a judicial bypass easier to get.
I'm surprised at varioius reactions. The question and equation overall is simple.
Is Gonzales more conservative than O'Connor?
It's a simple question. Yes or no. If yes, his addition to the court is a victory. Period. Discussion ended.
What he decided was that any vagueness in the law meant the most pro-abortion interpretation was necessary, even though such an interpretation would be clearly contrary to the legislative intent of the law. The legislature made their intent quite clear by angrily rewriting the law. He did what O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter and Stevens have always done: he found an excuse to rule as a liberal.