> Was their stance on the matter not clear?
Reasonably so, but not *officially* so. Thus, they could easily surprise us by coming up with pro-choice rulings, if the issue ever comes up. USSC Justices have been known to do that sort of thing.
Personally, I think a "moderately pro-choice" stance would be a modest political positive... as that is basically the stance of the bulk of the populace. The simple fact is, the President can't do doodly-squat about this issue, except shoot him/herself in the foot with the voters.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a Republican appointee turned out to be "not so conservative".