Former President Bill Clinton admitted Wednesday that abortion was a major factor in his decision to nominate Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“There is one thing that we did discuss, and I feel I should tell you, because it will illustrate why I thought I should appoint her,” Clinton said during a speech at Georgetown University Law School, ABC News reports.

That issue was abortion on demand and the precedent of Roe v. Wade.

Ginsburg is perhaps the most faithful defender of abortion on demand on the U.S. Supreme Court, but Clinton’s admission is significant because, as ABC News noted, “political leaders in both parties have sought to avoid the appearance of an abortion litmus test for high court nominees.”

According to National Review, Clinton’s comments also suggest Ginsburg may have lied during her U.S. Senate confirmation hearing.

Clinton wanted to make sure Ginsburg would allow the killing of unborn babies up to birth to remain the law of the land under Roe.

“Abortion was a big issue in 1992 — the right to choose. I was one of the first pro-choice Democrats to run since Roe v. Wade, who actually benefited from Roe v. Wade,” he said Wednesday. “Now, she didn’t have to say anything about this. She knew this perfectly well that I was under a lot of pressure to make sure I appointed someone who is Simon-pure, which I had said was important.”

Here’s more from the report:

In March 1993, five months before Clinton tapped her for the bench, Ginsburg delivered a lecture defending the court’s decision in Roe but disagreeing with the rationale, arguing for a narrower ruling on the basis of equal protection. “I asked her the question and she talked about it just as if it was any other issue, no effect, this is what I think, this is why I think it. And she made a heck of a case,” Clinton said.

During her confirmation hearing, Ginsburg was asked if anyone involved in the process of selecting her discussed “any specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning your position on such case, issue, or question?”

Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.

According to National Review:

In response (see p. 108 of hearing record), Ginsburg wrote:

It is inappropriate, in my judgment, to seek from any nominee for judicial office assurance on how that individual would rule in a future case. That judgment was shared by those involved in the process of selecting me. No such person discussed with me any specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning my position on such case, issue, or question.

Clinton claimed to support “safe, legal and rare” abortions, but his administration defended the killing of unborn babies. The Democrat president vetoed a bill banning partial-birth abortions and ushered in the dangerous abortion drug RU-486.

Ginsburg, who has become an idol of abortion activists, consistently has ruled against any abortion regulations that reach the high court.

In 2016, she was one of the five justices who sided with abortion activists in the decision Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which struck down Texas abortion clinic regulations that protected women’s health and safety. Ginsburg and four other justices ruled that these safety regulations were an “undue burden” on women’s access to abortion.

She also sided with the Obama Administration in trying to force nuns with the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for drugs that may cause abortions in their employee health care plans.

After a majority of the high court justices sided with Hobby Lobby in a similar case, Ginsburg accused them of being sexist. In an interview with pro-abortion media icon Katie Couric, Ginsburg lashed out at her colleagues and claimed they have a “blind spot” towards women because they decided that Hobby Lobby should not be forced to pay for drugs that may cause abortions for their employees.

Then, in May, Ginsburg criticized fellow Justice Clarence Thomas for referring to women who have abortions as “mothers.”

In contrast, during the contentious hearings last year for the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, pro-abortion Democrats hammered the conservative nominee with questions abo

ut abortion. President Donald Trump publicly stated that he did not discuss the abortion issue with Kavanaugh when he nominated him.

The upcoming presidential election has both pro-life and abortion activists concerned about the U.S. Supreme Court. The re-election of President Donald Trump could mean more conservative justices who will consider restoring protections to unborn babies, while the election of a pro-abortion Democrat could turn the court decidedly pro-abortion and allow abortion on demand to remain legal without restriction across the U.S.

Currently, the high court has five justices who were nominated by Republican presidents and four who were nominated by Democrats.