I'm sure it's surprising to the various pro-life groups who fought for his nomination.

As if they're paying attention any more, if they ever were at any analytical level.

His dissents in the Garza v Hargan case kind of did.

Except Kavanaugh did argue against immigrant women being able to have an abortion while in detention. [1]

What you say may be a true statement, but it also selectively ignores the sexual assault accusations made by three women he has known. Whether or not you believe the accusations are true or false doesn't change the fact that they factor into his expectations as a judge.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/opinion/abortion-kavanaug...

It suggests the Federalist Society failed to do their job in vetting the candidate for ideological purity, especially since Trump was holding up the Kavanaugh nomination as a big win for his anti-abortion base voters.

The idea that “Federalist Society wouldn’t recommend anyone but a hardline anti-abortionist” somehow has become common knowledge, but it is a complete fabrication. If you go to their website’s list of their events and conferences, you’ll find more about the Clean Water Act than abortion. (Indeed, after filtering for events and talks tagged “religious liberties”—I couldn’t find anything about abortion in the first ten pages of results.) Likewise for their Twitter. It’s not really one of their issues.

The idea of Federalist Society “ideological purity” is also pretty amusing, considering that there is a large Never Trump contingency within the organization: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/george-conway-starts-anti-tru.... I’d wager there are a lot more pro-choice Federalist Society members than pro-life members of the American Constitution Society.