In a pivotal decision, North Dakota's highest court has ruled that the state's strict abortion ban will not be enforced while an appeal on its constitutionality is in progress. This ruling comes in the wake of a September judgment where the law was struck down. Since 2022, North Dakota has been devoid of abortion providers following the relocation of its sole clinic to Moorhead, Minnesota, leaving residents to seek services under restricted circumstances solely at hospitals.
Advocates against the ban argue that it is imperative to maintain the block on enforcement, especially for those with pregnancy complications needing timely medical interventions. Delays posed by the ban could prove dangerous, they contend. Conversely, state attorneys have pushed for the ban’s immediate enforcement, citing unresolved constitutional queries of great significance to North Dakotans.
Previously, State District Judge Bruce Romanick had refuted this request, marking it illogical to uphold a law deemed unconstitutional while awaiting an appeal. Legal representatives from the Center for Reproductive Rights, acting on behalf of the involved clinic and physicians, stand firm against any enforcement.
Justice Daniel Crothers, in his majority opinion, emphasized the lack of substantial grounds in the state’s argument to warrant an interim enforcement. He stated, “The proposition advanced by the state lacks precedent and does not meet the threshold needed for a stay.”
The decision has been welcomed by reproductive rights advocates as a small victory in the broader battle against restrictive abortion laws. Meetra Mehdizadeh, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, expressed relief, stating, “Today’s decision to keep the abortion ban blocked was the only logical outcome. People are at risk without access to abortion.”
On the other hand, North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley noted that the decision solely pertains to the stay motion and not the constitutional aspects of the legislation. He affirmed that the state would pursue full litigation, aiming to establish the constitutional validity of the abortion law crafted by the legislature.
The legal journey of this case has been complex. Initiated by the Red River Women’s Clinic following the U.S. Supreme Court's overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022, the case challenges the revised abortion statutes enacted by North Dakota's Republican-led Legislature in 2023. These laws impose criminal penalties for performing abortions, permitting exceptions only for life preservation or significant health risks, with additional allowances for rape and incest cases up to six weeks of pregnancy.
Critics argue these laws are not only vague but also too restrictive regarding health exceptions. State Sen. Janne Myrdal, who authored the 2023 legislation, maintains that the court's decision is not a setback nor a judgment on the law's constitutionality. Myrdal claims, “It's not a reflection of the validity… I don't read anything more into that fact.”
As legal proceedings continue, the clinic involved does not plan to reopen in North Dakota, indicating a shifting landscape for reproductive rights and healthcare access in the state and beyond.