Roberts said it and then again he didn't say it. He was the master at saying two opposite things at the same time. It seemed to me that he pointed out all the legitimate privacy issues that everyone agrees with, while not necessarily agreeing with the broad and generalized privacy that leaves judges free to impose anything and everything they want without the people's consent. But I certainly wouldn't gamble on that. He was a slippery fellow.
This however is different. Most people agree with the results of Griswold, but that doesn't mean it was the right of the judges to decide the issue.
Roberts slippery as regards privacy? Or brilliant?
He didn't provide the opportunity to be attacked on the topic, agreed with privacy in principle but didn't go so far as to indicate that he agreed that the privacy "penumbra" sanctions abortion on demand.