North Dakota judge will decide whether to throw out state’s abortion ban

BISMARCK, ND. Lawyers argued Tuesday over whether a North Dakota judge should file a lawsuit challenging the state’s abortion ban, with the state saying the plaintiffs’ case is based on hypotheticals, and the plaintiffs saying important questions still need to be addressed. resolved in a scheduled trial.

State District Judge Bruce Romanick said he would rule as quickly as possible, but also asked the plaintiffs’ attorney what difference he would make in the August trial.

The Red River Women’s Clinic, which moved from Fargo to nearby Moorhead, Minnesota, filed the lawsuit challenging the state’s now-repealed trigger ban shortly after the fall from Roe v. in 2022. The clinic was the only abortion provider in North Dakota. In 2023, Controlled by North Dakota Republicans Revised Legislature state abortion laws in the middle of the process. Soon after, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaintaccompanied by doctors in obstetrics, gynecology and maternal-fetal medicine.

North Dakota prohibits abortion as a serious crime, with exceptions to prevent the death of the mother or a “serious risk to her health,” and in cases of rape or incest up to six weeks into pregnancy.

The plaintiffs allege that the law violates the state constitution because it is unconstitutionally vague for doctors regarding exceptions, and that its health care exception is too narrow.

The state wants the claim dismissed. Special Assistant Attorney General Dan Gaustad said the plaintiffs want the law declared unconstitutional based on hypotheticals, that the clinic now in Minnesota has no legal standing and that a trial will not help the judge.

“You will get no more information than you have now. It’s a legal issue,” Gaustad told the judge.

The plaintiffs want the trial to proceed.

Meetra Mehdizadeh, a lawyer at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the trial would resolve factual disputes about how the law would be applied to various pregnancy complications, “the extent to which the ban restricts the provision of standard medical treatment,” and the need for exceptions to mental health and pregnancies with fatal fetal diagnosis.

When asked by the judge about the trial, she said that hearing live testimony from experts, compared to reading their testimony, would give her the opportunity to test her credibility and ask her own questions to clarify issues.

In an interview, she said laws like North Dakota’s are causing confusion and hindering doctors when patients arrive in emergency medical situations.

“Nationally, we’re seeing doctors feel like they have to delay, whether it’s to do more testing, to consult with legal teams, or to wait for patients to get sicker, so they know if the patient qualifies under the ban,” he said. Mehdizadeh.

In January, the judge denied O plaintiffs’ request temporarily blocking part of the law so that doctors could perform abortions in health-saving settings without potential litigation.

A recent state report said abortions in North Dakota last year fell to a non-reportable levelmeaning there were fewer than six abortions performed in 2023. The state reported 840 abortions in 2021, a year before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade.

The court’s ruling allowed states to pass abortion bans, ending the national right to abortion.

Most Republican-controlled states now have bans or restrictions in place. North Dakota is one of 14 countries that prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy. Meanwhile, most Democratic-controlled states have adopted measures to protect access to abortion.

The question is important in this year’s elections: issues related to abortion electoral measures will be before voters in at least six states. Since 2022, voters in all seven states where similar issues have arisen have sided with abortion rights supporters.

___

Associated Press writer Geoff Mulvihill in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, contributed to this story.