Alito: No

There are many reasons to oppose this nominee. One of them is simply because he is nominated by Bush. This is a motivating factor in my decision to oppose him, but my overarching reason is his paternalism towards women evident in his decisions, especially compared to the Justice he is slated to replace. The quotes below are from a Washington Post article:

"The panel, in that same ruling, struck down a single provision in the
law requiring women to notify their husbands before they obtained an
abortion. Alito dissented from that part of the decision."

[...]

"On the spousal notification provision, O'Connor wrote for the
court that it did indeed constitute an obstacle. The 'spousal
notification requirement is . . . likely to prevent a significant
number of women from obtaining an abortion,' she wrote.

'It does not merely make abortions a little more difficult or expensive to obtain; for many women, it will impose a substantial obstacle. We must not blind ourselves to the fact that the significant number of women who fear for their safety and the safety of their children are likely
to be deterred from procuring an abortion as surely as if the
Commonwealth had outlawed abortion in all cases,' she said.

Plus,
it 'embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of
married women, but repugnant to our present understanding of marriage
and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. Women do
not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry, '
she said.

Whereas Sandra Day O'Connor came out and disagreed with a law requiring women to provide consent of their husbands before receiving an abortion, Alito supported it. The idea that a woman should get her husband's assent before getting an abortion (or doing pretty much anything) is an antiquated view shared by the Saudi Wahabbists and the Taliban (and the Religious Right in this country) and is quite far out of mainstream opinion. If he hadn't noticed (and O'Connor pointed out) "Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry". Husbands do not own their wives and in many cases, if Alito's opinion had stood, many women would have been forced to have children they didn't want or couldn't support in many cases because they are in abusive (physically or emotionally) marriages. As far as I can tell, the law also did not provide an exemption for rape, which does occur in marriages and is more common in abusive marriages. His confirmation would be a victory for religious zealots from Pat Robertson to the Saudi clerics to the Taliban and a loss for moderation, female rights and common decency.