Abortion is a particularly bad instance of that, that's for sure. But the right to bear arms as it is interpreted nowadays isn't in the Constitution as such either, it's also an extrapolation of the actual Second Amendment in a direction the Founding Fathers didn't intend. The way the federal government used their authority of regulating interstate commerce to take control over a whole host of things that have little to do with that, is yet another unintended stretch of the Constitution.

Point I'm getting at is, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you're going to be fetishist about the Constitution and bandy it around as some kind of ultimate unassailable argument, then you should be wary of all subsequent "interpretations" that twist articles or amendments into things the Founding Fathers never intended, and not merely the ones you don't like. Whereas on the other hand, if you think the Constitution really does need to be open for interpretation and evolution, and the Supreme Court should indeed interpret it in ways the Founding Fathers would never even have considered because the country has evolved and law should evolve too, then it makes little sense to accord a higher importance to the original amendments than to later ones, and it will require some rather solid arguments to explain why some extrapolations and interpretations are bad and others are good. More solid than "it's judicial activism!" or "abortion is not in the Constitution!", that is.