Read up on the 9th amendment, protections need not be explicitly mentioned to exist.
> Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.
This has been reaffirmed in many subsequent rulings.
Edit: but look at that language. "Without excessive government restriction." Sounds like "Congress shall make no law," doesn't it? Constitution doesn't say I can't sue you for exercising your rights, eh? Limitations are for governments.
And the 10th leaves the determination of that in the hands of the States, barring an amendment to the US Constitution.
Then there's the rabbit hole that is judicial review. And if constitutional protections need not be explicitly mentioned, why can't States assert that the right of judicial review is theirs, without the need to overturn or continue to respect Marbury v Madison.
> Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.
This has been reaffirmed in many subsequent rulings.
Edit: but look at that language. "Without excessive government restriction." Sounds like "Congress shall make no law," doesn't it? Constitution doesn't say I can't sue you for exercising your rights, eh? Limitations are for governments.