(which Kathryn posted below) seems like a significant and welcome climb-down. As far as I can tell, all he’s now saying is that Roe, as long as it’s on the books, creates some kind of (moral?) obligation for state governments to fund abortion for those who can’t afford it. He is even signaling opposition to changing federal policy in the matter, rather than the mere lack of interest in changing it that he had previously expressed. Given the mess he has made of this issue entirely of his own free actions, I think he should probably stiffen that opposition. But then, I thought his pro-life supporters should have insisted on that from the start.