From the gist of your remark, listed above, I conclude that you have not read Roe v Wade.
The majority opinion was correct when a "right to privacy" was acknowledged.
The majority opinion was grossly incorrect when it did not extend those same rights of privacy, life, liberty, et al to an embryo and fetus. The majority opinion only extended "human rights" to a "viable" fetus, dooming any human life less than that arbitrary designation to death.
That arbitrary decision of viability is the only reason why unwanted and inconvenient children are murdered regularily, not because of a a "right to privacy" that emanates from Amendment IX.
You have that same "right to privacy" protection, which I hope you will exert with enthusiasm and regularity.
With all due respect to you, I could not help but notice that your freeper name is "FormerLib."
I presume this means you are a former liberal, in the modern sense versus the classical sense, of which I could be classified as, as well as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, of which Madison was one of the primary authors of the Bill of Rights, Amendment IX most prominently.
That being said, modern liberals, as a general rule, are not proficient in exerting all Constitutional rights; are not familiar with, nor acknowledge all of the Bill of Rights and subsequently have difficulty thinking from the presumption of liberty.
It is my opinion that because of your presumed past history as a modern liberal, I can understand how you might have difficulty transitioning to the critical thinking mode of a presumption of liberty.
Good luck in your transition. If you need assistance, I will be happy to help.
It is not difficult, nor complicated. The U.S. Constitution is easy to understand and to implement, unless of course, you wish to put the needs of government above the rights of people, both enumerated and unenumerated.
Precisely the problem when decisions are based upon "emanations" which do not other wise exists in the law, invariably it will only serve the purpose that the person (or group) making the discovery wishes it to.
Fully applied, this discovered emanation should be able to strike down all laws prohibiting prostitution and illicit drug consumption (for example), both of which would be damaging to our society and Republic and would never have been the intent of the Founding Fathers.
If they want to make new law, they should have the courage of their convictions to plainly state that fact instead of attempting to bury it in nonsense about "emanations!"