It is absolutely an interpretation by the Kansas Supreme Court that bodily autonomy is a “natural right.” That’s literally what their holding was in that case. When we talk about explicit versus implicit in the legal sense, explicit means that something says that in those exact words. Implicit means it doesn’t, but we can infer the meaning from what it does say. The latter requires an interpretation. For example, in the US Constitution, the right to bear arms is explicit. It’s right there (unfortunately) in those exact words in the 2nd Amendment. The right to privacy, on the other hand, is not explicit in the US Constitution. In the past, SCOTUS has interpreted this rights as existing in the Constitution implicitly. The current Court seems to disagree, and this illustrates why this is important with abortion rights and the Kansas state constitution. That right exists, legally, by implication, as the Court interpreted the constitution in that case. A new court could interpret it differently, and Kansas Supreme Court justices are not appointed for life. They serve 6 year terms. The next time there’s a Republican governor, this interpretation could easily change.
1 Like
