"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I love this bit. You see, the Constitution gave only a few, very specific powers to Congress, and then in the 9th and 10th Amendments reserved everything else to either the People or the constituent States.
Of course, the sort of people who seek power have usurped a great deal of those rights and powers from the people to give to themselves, and they have been very busy denying and disparaging any rights retained by the people that were not specifically listed in the first eight amendments (which have also been under constant attack for a long time). They claim, of course, that the Constitution is not really specific, so they can do what they like. They do not have to recognize any human rights, they claim, that are not specifically enumerated.
Naturally, I strongly disagree. I hold that the people hold ALL powers that have not been specifically delegated to either the States or the Federal government. Having read the writings of some revolutionaries I believe that most of them would have agreed. I recall one author writing about British soldiers searching women at checkpoints, and declaring that such an imposition by itself would have justified war with Britain if there had not already been cause enough - and hence, it appears that a right to privacy (to the consternation of critics of Roe v. Wade) was an assumed right that the patriots would have recognized, and indeed recognized as so obvious that they did not feel a need to write it down - just as they did not feel a need to enumerate a right to breathe, a right to eat what food one could acquire by honest means, and a right to build or arrange for shelter from the elements (the last of which is, nonetheless, frequently abridged in many localities).
The people of that time assumed that the right to meet one's basic needs was so obvious that no one thought that it was necessary to clarify these rights, and instead they focused on assuring such rights as they had found abridged in their own lives - resulting in many excellent precedents and the oddity of the Third Amendment, which prohibits the government from quartering troops in private homes during peace time (as if a modern army would want to).
But despite all the evidence that is already stacked against them, the Statist parties continue to demand justification when citizens presume to exercise their rights and just powers. For that reason I will put forward my conclusion, that the 9th Amendment protects - at a bare minimum - the right of every person to be free of such restrictions or prohibitions that would prevent them from living a healthy life or meeting their basic needs.
With that in mind, I would note that while I hold strictly to the original meaning of the Constitution, this document was written broadly enough to encompass new information and new technologies. Thus, Freedom of Speech applies not only to printing presses but also to computer networks, Freedom of Religion applies to religions that did not exist at the time the Constitution was written, and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms applies not only to muskets and cannons but also to modern pistols and rifles (at the very minimum). Likewise, the right to pursue a healthful and happy life must incorporate new knowledge as to what is necessary for a healthful and happy life.
With that in mind, it is clear that any regulations regarding the pursuit of one's basic needs must be applied in the least restrictive manner possible and meet the standards of strict scrutiny.
And with that in mind, I introduce you to a modern idea of what the basic needs of human beings include. Though the theory has been refined by others, the basic needs are widely considered to be the same.
How many of these basic human needs does your government restrict or deny? I see quite a few that the U.S. government denies to pedophiles.
Follow the link below to learn more about Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.