Didn’t he mean, “I’m pro-life, in an election year?”
Placing a time limit on abortions is not at all the same thing as a total prohibition on abortion.
“Safe, rare, and legal” was how the whole abortion concept was sold to America in the beginning.
There is no way abortion can be “safe” for at least 50% of the individuals involved, as the death of the fetus is a certainty. And “rare” is a haunting mockery of how common the termination of a pregnancy has become. So far as “legal” goes, the determination of the wording of the relevant law should be made on as close to the power of the people to vote upon the issue as practical, and the Federal government, far removed from the individual opinion, is much further away than state legislatures, which have far more accountability than the Federal government to the will of the people.
This is not a duty to be shuffled off to bureaucrats, or the judiciary, but remains a power that is reserved to the respective states, or the people acting through their respective state legislatures.
I do not see that the setting of a limitation on the conditions of abortion by the Federal Government is in any way an actionable legislative task. The probability of this proposal becoming law in any event is very low, given the uncertain likelihood that any kind of compromise could ever be worked out that would gain the approval of Democrat Socialists, who would insist on no limitations at all, and Constitutional MAGA Republican, for whom the proposed bill flies directly in the face of the Dodd decision, returning the power of determination of laws concerning abortion to the respective state legislatures.