it is different than the us constitution because the list of rights that kansas enumerates are explicitly open ended and include all natural human rights. that isn’t an interpretation, that was a deliberate choice they made when authoring their constitution.
could they add language to their constitution saying abortion is explicitly protected? of course they could.
should they? normally i would say no – because what about all the other natural rights that aren’t listed? those immediately become “lesser” rights. ( see the us constituion and the way abortion was interpreted by this us supreme court as lesser, and not real because some rights are and some rights aren’t listed. )
however, in the current context? yes, it would probably be a good idea.
Because nothing currently prevents that court from reversing themselves in a future case.
nothing ever prevents a government from enacting wrong and dangerous laws. we are always at the mercy of the legislature, the courts, the cops, and the military. or even our neighbors. that’s just the way the world works. every word put down is an attempted bulwark against bad outcomes. but it’s always just still words. nothing is ever permanent.
