His logic seems backwards to me.
Not discounting current scientific advanced into DNA testing, the best an accuser can hope for, decades later, is that they've kept the attackers DNA on something, somewhere, somehow.
Why would someone who has, according to ABC, "credible accusations of sexual misconduct lodged against them", be against Roe v Wade?
Wouldn't someone would does this sort of thing, want the victim to have abortions, as a way to (somewhat) cover their tracks?
"Sexual misconduct? Years ago? Why, no, it wasn't me. Their is no resulting child to check the DNA to prove it was mine".
No Roe v Wade, a child would be produced.
It may not prove assault, but it would prove an encounter between the 2 individuals took place.