A federal anti-abortion law would run afoul of the Ninth.
However when the people of a state pass a law they are defining their unenumerated rights. The Ninth expresses that it is in their power, and theirs alone, to do so.
Reading the Ninth to put our uneneumerated rights into the hands of a branch of the federal government is backward.
The advancement of a referendum, after a whole article criticizing acts that aren't supported by the constitution, is pretty stupid of the author.
Before the 14th Amendment the case law supports your argument that the 9th doesn't apply to the states. If you read the Senate debate on the 14th, then it is pretty clear that is what was intended - application of the BOR to the states, that is. What judges have made of that since then has been a hash - some rights incorporated, some not.
The author is discussing the US Constitution and claims the right to privacy does not exist because it is not specifically listed in this document. He is wrong.
And you are wrong if you believe the states can pass laws that contradict the US Constitution.
Our rights exist whether listed in a document or not, regardless of what document you are discussing. States or papers do not grant me rights. Only God (or natural law if you prefer) can grant rights. States on the other hand, infringe on rights. Sometimes justly, sometimes not.
Now with all this said, the right to privacy is not absolute. It does not provide me or anyone else a shield to kill an unborn child or plot terrorist attacks.