Oh, nevermind, I found it. Roberts said "settled as a precedent." Roberts is again stating another obvious fact. Unless you are denying that Roe v. Wade is a precedent.
It is not a matter of legal parsing. It is his choice of words and how he expresses them.
When somebody gives that much backing to the Right to Privacy and Stare Decesis on the matter of abortion, it means something.
It means he is a long way from overturning anything. The conservative movement goes around pretending to have accomplished a lot half of the time, and pretending to be blocked by Roe the other half.
But choosing not to pass a constitutional version of the Partial Birth Ban and choosing not to pursue 3rd trimester bans across the country (both explicitly allowed by Roe) leaves the movement virtually naked in the courts.
What evidence do you have that this country is ready to overturn such a firmly established precedent as Roe?
Your own personal beliefs? Some imaginary history perhaps? An imaginary biblical injunction?
Faith in God, I guess. Just don't make the mistake of expecting an activist conservative judge to do what your Representatives are afraid to do.