Actually, he said earlier that it was bad law as far as the Constitution was concerned, but that he had no problem going by the laws of the land.
That I think is the simple view of how he sees this.
I think if abortion comes up again, that he would vote to overturn current law and it would go back to the states.
Meaning California, New York and a few other states would still have all kinds of abortions.
actually, I think you would find 40+ states allowing abortion within 12 weeks. where most states would really crack down, is with partial birth abortion and parental notification.
"Meaning California, New York and a few other states would still have all kinds of abortions."
Unless the House & Senate pass a law. It seems to me that the Federal Government is already well within the territory of such laws, in general. Do the states really have significant jurisdiction anymore, if the Feds want it?
By the way, I wonder what Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas said regarding abortion in their confirmation hearings. Probably the same thing.
It is "settled law."
But, they can vote to change it in the future.
By a strict interpretation of the Constitution, abortion is not addressed at all.
Consequently, it is an issue reserved to the States and the people, where it should lie.
Abortion is wrong, its legalized murder, but murder is not normally a federal issue.