NRO's Ed Whelan offers this interesting piece. He forwards three possible readings of the Constitution on abortion, which he calls the liberal, conservative, and moderate readings. I think his distinctions produce fruitful categories not often considered in the abortion debate. He also covers how "the media routinely label the radical pro-abortion position as 'moderate' and the substantively neutral position as 'extremist right-wing.'" This leads to, and by now reinforces, the perception that overturning Roe would make abortion illegal (hence the NOW circle signs protesters use that say "Keep Abortion Legal"). The media "then cite the public's resulting support for the imagined Roe as supposed evidence of Roe's moderation."
Link: Edward Whelan on John Roberts on National Review Online.
As a deputy solicitor general in President George H. W. Bush's administration, Roberts co-authored briefs that reflected the administration's sound view that the substantively neutral position was the correct constitutional position. There is, unfortunately, no particular reason to infer that the position taken in those briefs reflects Roberts's own constitutional reading. In those cases, as in all the other briefs that Roberts wrote in government and in private practice, he was acting as an advocate for his client.