There's nothing in his personal view because his personal view doesn't, or shouldn't, matter in interpreting the law. What does matter is whether or not he believes that Roe vs. Wade is a bad law and if something in his judicial review would keep him from fully and faithfully applying that precedent. I'm guessing that since he's a conservative constitutionalist that he doesn't see a right to privacy for abortion enumerated in the constitution. Roe vs. Wade is unconstitutional.
Correct, and that is, basically, the difference between appointing a conservative judge and an originalist. A conservative judge will make judicial decisions based on his agenda and will read the law in ways to suit them. That, to me, is as bad as when a liberal judge does it. An originalist will look at the document, whether the Constitution or a Congressional statute and will determine what the law was intended to do at the time of its passing. (Justice Scalia, for example, doesn't buy into the concept, in Constitutional law, of discerning the Founders' intent, but instead tries to determine what it meant to the PEOPLE that ratified it.) In any case, it is a happy coincidence that the very great majority of "conservative" positions in the legal sense would be promoted by an originalist interpretation of the document. By appointing an originalist, you don't have to worry about each and every issue. The judge will read what the Constitution (or law) says. If the point of view that you're looking to advance isn't in it, then it is up to the People, through their elected legislature to enact a law to correct the problem, not up to the judiciary to create it by decree.