i don't think he is.
i don't think he's particularly invested, but he probably leans towards being pro-choice. he seems to think it's up to the states to decide.
well, ok. but that position - removing abortion as a federal issue - instantly alienates a third or more of his party's base, which votes republican strictly on restricting abortion. if that's no longer a federal political issue at all, these voters may no longer be interested in voting for the republican party at the federal level. in fact, they may not be interested in voting at all. they may join the ranks of the apolitical, which is largely where they were before roe v wade. or they may focus strictly on state level politics, instead.
this should be a major victory for secularism in the long run, but it had the opposite effect during this particular cycle. the democrats ran very conservative candidates in an attempt to outstupid the republicans and they didn't succeed in swinging any votes from them at all. they won, but almost in spite of their conservative stupidity, rather than because of it. instead of voting for the democrats, republicans didn't vote at all.
there's consequently reason to have hope that the outstupiding competition, that the dumb and dumber congress, may be shortlived, if democrats (or republicans) clue in and make a stronger play for secular voters.
if the religious right keeps losing control of the republicans, and the democrats remain insistent on trying to outstupid them by running on their right as some kind of purer religious group or something, it will open up a hole on the secular left for the republicans to walk through.
and i'll just say that i'd like to see these newly elected conservative and religious democrats lose, lose soon and lose big.