That's the headline on Drudge. The charge is based upon Roberts' co-authorship of the brief in Rust v. Sullivan. I explained why this does not mean he is anti-Roe here. Indeed, whatever Roberts' opinion of Roe, he is a phenomenal nominee. The SCOTUSBlog profile can be found here.
UPDATE: Adam White at Southern Appeal notes that Roberts was the sixth lawyer listed on the Rust brief, and didn't even argue the case.
Why is this [as in the broader issue] important? Because it is improper to ascribe to an attorney the positions advocated on behalf of his or her clients. As I said before, I don't know whether Roberts would vote to overturn Roe. Maybe he would, but neither his participation in Rust nor his wife's pro-life views is enough to make such an assumption. [Note addition in brackets above.]
SECOND UPDATE: A PFAW release (posted on BenchMemos) warning of Roberts' "alarming" record reads in part:
Roberts urged the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade while arguing before the Court as Deputy Solicitor General in a case that did not even directly concern that issue. His brief plainly states that "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."(emphases added).
THIRD UPDATE: According to Robert Alt, Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe, who argued the other side in Rust, says those who attack Roberts over the Rust brief are giving him a "bum rap."