Bork would have been a good USSC Justice.
I'm a little uneasy with that. When he said that there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, he is literally correct, but it's an answer to the wrong question. The salient point is that in matters not mentioned in the Constitution, we win and the government loses. The Constitution is an explicit list of powers granted to the government, not of our rights. The burden is not upon the citizens but upon the government to find justification for their position in the Constitution. IOW, it's a rebuttable presumption that the answer to any request by the government is "No!" but to any action by a citizen "Yes!".
Now it doesn't follow that Roe was decided correctly. Logically it's none of the feds business and the states' jurisdiction to regulate, but since it protects the right of the unborn to a shot at life, it's arguably OK to ban it at the state level. No Griswoldian "emanations" or "penumbras" needed.