But allowing states to regulate abortion, for example, would be denying the People the right to get one should they so choose. I would think a plain reading of the 9th gives People the right to exercise rights (that they retain, as indicated by the text of the 9th), not States the power to regulate those rights.
And, yes, I agree that current jurisprudence disagrees with both of us.
>>But allowing states to regulate abortion, for example, would be denying the People the right to get one should they so choose<<
I think you're wrong.
The Ninth cannot mean that individuals can perform any action not forbidden by the Constitution.
It also can't mean that anything that the Congress cannot legislate on must be legal.
The rights and powers of the People have expression in the legislatures of the several states (scary, ain't it?).
States have broad powers to legislate in areas denied to Congress by the Tenth-and these legislative acts are manifestations of the retained rights referred to by Nine.