Roberts recently did a fancy legal maneuver (I don’t know the term for it, as I am definitely not a legal scholar) where he concurred with the conclusion of other judges in a pro-choice case, but not their reasoning behind it.
It's actually not a fancy legal maneuver, it happens all the time in concurring opinions and is usually the reason for a separate concurring opinion.
Roberts is is an excellent Judge because he understands the role of the Supreme Court Judge. It is no different than a baseball umpire. He used that very analogy and once commented, "it's my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat." The problem with you guys is you want to see Judges who pitch and bat, who in effect are tools for the President or else a certain policy agenda. They are not legislators nor are they serving a regulatory function. Nor is it their job to predetermine outcomes or look at a case and say, "we are going to use this to overrule Roe v. Wade." That would be stepping out of the umpire role and grabbing a bat and swinging at a pitch, something umpires are not allowed to do. Their job is to examine and interpret and evaluate a law that has been put in issue whether it be case law, statutory law, administrative law or sometimes executive orders. They evaluate its legal propriety based on the precedent law at hand.
There is a lot more to the Roe v. Wade decision than what you mentioned. They used a scientific analysis of the 3 trimesters of pregnancy and created a series of legal framework analyses for each of the 3 trimesters. Ultimately Roe v. Wade is rooted in the 10th amendment, even though they got there through a privacy right found in the penumbra of rights in the 14th amendment due process clause. Under the 3 trimester analysis, during the third trimester, abortions can be prohibited entirely so long as the state law contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother. So under that analysis they left it up to the States to regulate it, because the federal government is not involved in, nor should it be, in determining whether someone can abort a fetus/baby/child. They simply set up an analysis for evaluating State laws which do so and each State is free to do what they wish within that framework of analysis.