There's a clear inferred right to privacy and bodily autonomy inferred from the penumbras of the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments. Read Roe (one of the most bold and creative, and I like boldness and creativity, interpretations of the Constitutions I've ever had the pleasure of reading). William O. Douglas was the man, unlike so many of these current Justices that think they have to be bound by Framer's intent.
The problem with the ruling is not whether the rights to privacy or bodily autonomy exist. Regardless of whether or not they do, neither right inherently has relation to the issue of abortion unless you make the assumption that a fetus is not also a living person, who would be equally entitled to the right of bodily autonomy should it exist. The question of the personhood of a fetus is the single most important question in regard to abortion, and it seems to be one that is often easily ignored, including in the ruling and the left's support for it.
The Left doesn't ignore the question of personhood. The Left has clearly answered that question with the position that the fetus is not a person, and some leftists aren't afraid to state that outright. Some support abortion even if they disagree over the personhood issue. I'm sure many people would say "well, OK, the fetus isn't nothing, but it's still not a person, and I'm still for the right to abort it."
