Posted on 01/26/2025 10:46:18 AM PST by Morgana
The state of North Dakota will keep fighting in court to uphold its abortion ban that saves babies from abortions.
Yesterday, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled that the state’s abortion ban will remain unenforced while the state appeals a prior decision declaring the law unconstitutional. This decision means that, for now, abortions in North Dakota are permitted only in cases where the life of the mother in in jeopardy and must be performed in a hospital setting.
The legal journey of North Dakota’s abortion legislation has been complex. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, North Dakota’s Republican-led legislature enacted a law protecting babies from abortions.
This law faced immediate legal challenges, leading to a district judge striking it down in September 2024 on constitutional grounds. The state subsequently appealed this ruling, seeking to enforce the ban during the appeal process—a request the Supreme Court has now denied.
Currently, North Dakota does not have any abortion businesses, meaning babies are protected within the state. The only abortion center relocated to Moorhead, Minnesota, in 2022, following Dobbs decision.
Last year a state judge issued a ruling about the ban:
State District Judge Bruce Romanick rejected a request for a preliminary injunction, saying the request “is not appropriate and the Plaintiffs have presented no authority for the Court to grant the specific relief requested.”
The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Red River Women’s Clinic, arguing that North Dakota’s SB 2150 was so vague that it put abortionists who performed an abortion at risk of prosecution. But Judge Romanick said he would not block a part of the law “that doctors say puts them at risk of prosecution if they perform an abortion to save a patient’s life or health,” reported Jack Dura for the Associated Press.
Judge Romanick said the plaintiffs appeared to request that he,
“by way of a preliminary injunction, change application of the exception from ‘reasonable medical judgment’ to ‘good faith medical judgment.’ Plaintiffs have cited the Court with no legal authority that would allow the Court to re-write the statute in this manner under the pretense of providing injunctive relief.”
State Senator Jane Myrdal, “who introduced the bill in 2023, approved of the court’s ruling,” according to Madeline Yingling. “I think we have something that’s very clear for physicians to see,” she stated. “It’s common sense what we put in as far as the health exceptions… and interpreting it simply shouldn’t be that hard for physicians.”
So, they have to drive an hour or 2? People drive more than that just to kill time, let alone babies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.