No, not necessarily. If something isn't specifically enshrined it will need to be decided by courts and a legal precedent set. Even then, it's not a codified law as such, just a legal cutout. Which is in some ways what the status quo was in regards to RvW. The last thing anyone needs is to consult a lawyer as to whether or not their necessary medical procedure is legal. There could be a case made that the wording of a law that explicitly defines abortion as "not illegal" rather than "legal" would mean it's legal, but I'd have to ask what the purpose of such a law would be. Ultimately, what activists want is a codified law that unequivocally grants access to reproductive healthcare, including abortions, etc, not a legal grey area to be determined by the whims of a court and the specific biases of a judge