norml21 - Page 45

 1976) (privacy); Minnesota State Board of Wealth v. Cit_ of
 Brainerdf 241 N.Wo2d 624 (Minn° 1976) (bodily integrity); and
 A_den v° Younger_ 57 Calo Appo3d 662, 129 Sal. Rptr. 535 (1976)
 (privacy of mind). The Minneso%a S_tg__Board of_Health casef
 while upholding the power of the city to fluoridate the city
 water supply_ recognized that the right of personal privacy_
 guaranteed under the First, Fourth, Fifths Ninth and Fourteenth
 Amendments, extends to protecting an individual's decision
 regarding what he will or will not ingest into his body° The
 court noted that "this concept of bodily integrity is rooted in
 common lawo" 241 NoW.2d at 631.
 Thus_ it is clear that the courts_ both state and federal_
 have used the Ninth Amendment as a source of substantive
 protection for an increasing number of individual rights not
 enumerated in the Constitutions but nevertheless _Tretained by the
 people."
 IIio RULES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION SUPPORT A SUBSTANTIVE
 READING OF THE NINTH AMENDMENT.
 As a general rule, a statute should not be read so as to de-
 prive any of its words of meaning. The Ninth Amendment states
 that there are other unenumerated rights "retained by the
 people. '_
 While the Constitution explicitly states that these
 unenumerated rights of the people exist, the traditional
 45