To me (and I'm not a legal scholar) the 9th reads as a recognition of other rights not mentioned in the Constitutional document, but that would've been practiced and widespread at the time. It offers protection to rights that existed at the time but that weren't listed. These might've been guaranteed by legal precedent or be traditions that are concordant with the stated aims of the Constitution. Abortion wasn't either of those things and so I don't think the 9th applies... but I'd be happy to be wrong.

And I think that's where we cut to the idea that it's a living document. I'm a dystopian fiction writer. What applies in this instance, has to be future proof. What happens to the law when we can guarantee pregnancy outside of utero? To whom does a baby belong? Is it a mother's choice? Is it 50/50 between the people who have donated genetic material. Does the embryonic sac belong to the State? Will red states take on the embryonic waste of other states?. Law is a living thing and it is hard, which is why these debates and questions are important.

If one presumes that a foetus is a person, then the 4th amendment guarantees the right of that person not to be violated.... whilst simultaneously guaranteeing the mother the same thing....If we do that, we're back to square one. I think it's still a first amendment religious issue and the state should make no further judgment on it. It should be (for the time being) be a matter between a pregnant woman, their conscience and their medical practitioners.