She did not state she was against abortion.
She did not state whether she was for or against abortion used as eugenics.
She stated that she did not anticipate that the SC would vote against a law that might have encouraged abortion used as eugenics. (She didn’t say which way she voted on the case about Medicaid paid abortions, only that she was surprised at the votes of the other jurists).
Which is not what the WND article (and most of the posters here) are trying to make this story out to be.
For 7 years, she thought that R. V. W. was a eugenics based decision. Did she or did she not support R. V. W.?