Newsbreak

North Dakota Supreme Court upholds injunction on state’s pro-life law while lawsuit proceeds

The North Dakota Supreme Court on Friday denied the state’s request to reinstate its law protecting preborn children from abortion while a lawsuit objecting to those protections proceeds.

North Dakota’s law, which went into effect in 2023, protects nearly all preborn children from abortion. Exceptions are made only in cases of rape or incest if the mother has been pregnant for less than six weeks, or when the pregnancy poses a serious physical health threat — though induced abortion (the act of directly and intentionally killing the preborn child) is not medically necessary. The law was challenged by the state’s sole abortion facility shortly after its passage.

In September 2024, District Judge Bruce Romanick (now retired) placed an injunction on the law in response to the lawsuit, saying the pro-life law was “unconstitutionally void for vagueness.” He also stated, “… [P]regnant women in North Dakota have a fundamental right to choose abortion before viability exists.” The state is appealing that decision but asked the Supreme Court to reinstate the law while its appeal proceeds.

Justice Daniel Crothers wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Lisa Fair McEvers (who appears to have been a guest at Judge Romanick’s retirement ceremony) and Daniel Narum, sitting in for Justice Douglas Bahr. Chief Justice Jon Jensen and Justice Jerod Tufte dissented. In its ruling, the court seemed to agree with Romanick’s assessment that the state’s law is vague, writing, “Along with its general language, the law uses complex terms like ‘serious health risk’ and ‘substantial physical impairment,’ yet the law provides no definition or guidance as to what these terms are supposed to mean.”

READ: Pro-lifers celebrate their freedom following President Trump’s pardon

The court, inexplicably, also seemed to insinuate that killing a preborn child may be necessary to keep a woman from harming herself, writing, “The law is unlikely to survive strict scrutiny review because it criminalizes abortions necessary to prevent a woman from harming or killing herself.”

To the contrary, several of the laws in pro-life states, like that of Texas, also disallow abortions in cases when there is “a claim or diagnosis that the female would engage in conduct that might result in the female’s death or in substantial impairment of a major bodily function” (emphasis added). Florida’s pro-life heartbeat law allows induced abortions in cases of “medical necessity for legitimate emergency medical procedures… to save the pregnant woman’s life or avert a serious risk of imminent, substantial, and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman other than a psychological condition” (emphasis added).

Laws like these rightly assert that intentionally and directly causing the death of an innocent human being is not a reasonable solution or method of assistance for a woman who is threatening self-harm or suffering from a mental health crisis. (If one could not reasonably assume that a woman’s born child should be killed in order to prevent her self-harm or improve her psychological condition, then neither should killing her preborn child be considered in such situations.)

North Dakota Right to Life issued a statement following the law’s overturn last fall — a statement that still rings true as the law continues to remain on hold.

“This ruling opens North Dakota to unrestricted abortion access—eliminating necessary safeguards such as waiting periods, parental consent for minors, and critical health and safety standards. In doing so, the judge’s decision directly undermines the wellbeing of women and young girls, putting their health at risk and disregarding the will of the people in North Dakota,” the organization said in its September statement. “[Judge Romanick’s] poor methodology and decision to bypass the standard legal process reflect a troubling disregard for the legal protections that were put in place to ensure informed consent and promote the safety of North Dakotans. We firmly believe that this ruling does a grave disservice to our state and will lead to harmful consequences for women, minors, and unborn children alike.”

The court’s opinion does not impact the state’s appeal of Romanick’s ruling, which is still being considered.

“This is only a decision on the stay motion, not on the constitutional merits of the legislation,” North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley said. “North Dakota will continue moving forward to fully litigate this matter before the state Supreme Court, where we intend to establish that the law passed by our legislature is clearly constitutional.”

What is Live Action News?

Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective. Learn More

Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.

GUEST ARTICLES: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated. (See here for Open License Agreement.) Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!



To Top