For those who instinctively fall back on the structural conclusion that "reproductive rights aren't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, so they're not there", I'd like to know your answer to a few questions.
Where are the following rights in the Constitution?
1. the right to seek medical care
2. the right to marry
3. the right to parent your children as you see fit
4. the right to choose which restaurant to visit
5. the right to have sex out of wedlock
6. the right to masturbate or do whatever floats your boat here
7. the right to choose your employer
8. the right to donate to charity
If your answer is to go all Alito and claim that these rights were somehow "rooted"* in our 1868 understanding of liberty, that actually wouldn't apply to (5), since fornication was widely illegal at the time. Maybe not (6) either. But leaving those aside, interpreting aspirational constitutional clauses centered on "liberty", "due process", "equality" and a direct call to avoid "disparaging" unenumerated rights to only mean the specific instantiations recognized by WHITE MEN in 1868 is to support the effective end of the Constitution. Taken to its logical conclusion, the Alito position is absurd: no restrictive laws in wide use (rooted in history) can ever be thrown out. So much for the conservative posture of limited government. (Also worth remembering that Republicans used to get it: 5 of the 7 justices in the Roe majority were nominated by Republican presidents.)
*Supreme Court Justices are poor historians, so even this exercise is a mess. Further, what even counts as "historically rooted"? Why doesn't recent history count at all?
The only durable answer - and one that is actually more consistent with what the framers wanted - is that those clauses establish a protected DOMAIN of intimate personal autonomy. And the application of that protection depends on evolving standards, circumstances and context. When it comes to abortion, of course our country in its infancy outlawed it in places. That's what happens when white MEN (who were recent slave owners to boot) get to exclusively make the rules. At the time Alito (arbitrarily) cites as binding, women were not considered citizens with full rights; they were essentially inferior objects to be used how men saw fit.
At the end of the day, the jurisprudential question is whether we want a durable and relevant constitution - or an antiquated and useless piece of junk that should be in a museum. The current Court has us on a fast track to the latter.
Post Script:
Alito also cites behavior in the 13th century as part of his majority opinion. Wow, very helpful in 2022. He should just be honest and cherry pick the Bible; we know that's where he wants to go as a theocrat.