That's exactly the point; and those "oh so many things" are left to the States.

> Perhaps a constitutional amendment that gives people their privacy back is in order?

Perhaps, I'd be supportive of something like that!

> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This just means that the absence of an enumerated right doesn't imply that the right is absent by default. The fact that the Constitution doesn't outline a right to drive a car (or consume heroin) doesn't mean that driving a car or consuming heroin is by default illegal; it's just left to the States (and the people) to decide what to do with those things. But (importantly), just because the Constitution doesn't outline a right to consume heroin, the 9th Amendment does not confer a Constitutional right to consume heroin — that would be absurd. It's still something that can be decided upon by the legislatures, and if a legislature decided to outlaw the consumption of heroin, you can't point to the Constitution to invalidate such laws.

> It stands to reason (in Roe) that, unless someone's religion (separation of church and state?) believes a life begins before birth, the right of a woman's privacy and control of her own life and happiness is primary.

I agree with the normative assessment that the right of a woman's privacy and control of her own life/happiness is primary (at least up to a certain point in the pregnancy); I'm pro-choice. That said, the fact that people may use their own religious views to come to a different conclusion and pass laws to that effect is NOT a violation of the separation of church and state. All "separation of church and state" means is that there's no official state religion, and policymaking isn't delegated to the clergy without democratic input — that's it.

To illustrate with an example, it doesn't really matter that (historically) the majority of people derived their beliefs on the morality of assault/murder from the Ten Commandments, the fact that murder is illegal is not a violation of the separation of church and state.

> Any other logic, as in Dobbs, is superseding her right to privacy, life, and happiness, with the religious belief in the life of an unborn child.

Except this belief is not exclusively religious. There are plenty of atheists that are pro-life, and similarly believe that (at least after a certain point of a pregnancy) the right of the unborn child should be balanced with the right of the mother.