Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: Victory for Equal Dignity in Kansas Supreme Court Ruling

“We are gratified that the Court echoed the brief of CAC and ACLU of Kansas Foundation, emphasizing the original meaning of the Kansas Constitution in incorporating into state law the broad promises of equality and dignity found in America’s Declaration of Independence.” — CAC President Elizabeth Wydra

WASHINGTON – On news this morning that the Kansas Supreme Court issued its ruling in Hodes & Nauser, M.D.s, P.A., et al. v. Schmidt & Howe, holding that “the Kansas Constitution’s drafters’ and ratifiers’ proclamation of natural rights applies to pregnant women” and that this “proclamation protects the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy,” Constitutional Accountability Center President Elizabeth Wydra issued the following reaction:

In a profound ruling this morning, a supermajority of the Kansas Supreme Court—including Justices appointed by Republican and Democratic governors—recognized the importance of “the right to control one’s own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination” on decisions concerning abortion.

We are gratified that the Court echoed the brief of CAC and ACLU of Kansas Foundation, emphasizing the original meaning of the Kansas Constitution in incorporating into state law the broad promises of equality and dignity found in America’s Declaration of Independence.

While applying only within the state of Kansas, today’s ruling should provide an example to all other courts in the nation grappling with these critical questions. As we noted in our brief, and as the framers of the Kansas Constitution explained, the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence are a call to secure “wide liberty” and to ensure “to every individual perfect freedom to enjoy in safety and tranquility the rights and blessings of that existence.”

#

Resources:

Brief of CAC and ACLU Foundation of Kansas in support of plaintiff physicians Herbert C Hodes and Traci Lynn Nauser: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/hodes-nauser-m-d-s-p-a-et-al-v-schmidt-howe-kan-sup-ct/

“It’s 2016 and Kansas Approvingly Cited Dred Scott in an Abortion Case. It Was Not a Good Idea.,” Mother Jones, October 20, 2016: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/kansas-retracts-dred-scott-citation-supporting-anti-abortion-law/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
North Dakota Supreme Court

Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley

In Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley, the North Dakota Supreme Court is considering whether North Dakota’s abortion ban violates the state constitution.
Civil and Human Rights
January 13, 2025

CAC RELEASE: At Stanley Oral Argument, Questioning Focuses on Narrow Ground for Resolving Employment Discrimination Case in Favor of a Retiree with a Disability

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Stanley v....
Civil and Human Rights
December 30, 2024

Top Contributor Essays of 2024

The Regulatory Review
The Regulatory Review is pleased to revisit our top regulatory essays of 2024, each authored by...
Civil and Human Rights
December 5, 2024

Podcast (We the People): Can Tennessee Ban Medical Transitions for Transgender Minors?

National Constitution Center
A Tennessee law prohibits transgender minors from receiving gender transition surgery and hormone therapy. Professor Kurt...
Civil and Human Rights
December 4, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court Should Not Turn Equal Protection Clause on its Head in Case about Medical Care for Transgender Adolescents

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in United States...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District

In Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, the Ninth Circuit is considering whether lost educational opportunities are compensable under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.