Abortions to resume in North Dakota after court finds near-total ban unconstitutional

[mystery-ak]

Abortions to resume in North Dakota after court finds near-total ban unconstitutional

A court decision struck down the ban in its entirety.
ByNadine El-Bawab
September 12, 2024, 1:12 PM

Abortions are now legal in North Dakota after the state Supreme Court ruled its near-total abortion ban was unconstitutionally vague.

The ruling came as part of a lawsuit filed by physicians that asked the court to strike down the ban in its entirety. A North Dakota South Central Judicial District Court judge granted that request Thursday.

At least 21 states currently have bans or restrictions in place on abortion care. Of those states, 13 states have ceased nearly all abortion services and four states prohibit abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, before most women know they are pregnant.

more
https://abcnews.go.com/US/abortions-resume-north-dakota-after-court-finds-total/story?id=113636793

[Fishrrman]

Once more, I'll say it:

Looking back about 25 years from now, reasonable-minded folks are going to realize that "the right to life" of the unborn was actually MORE protected "under Roe" than it will become post-Dobbs.

As the saying goes:
"Be careful what you wish for..."

[Hoodat]

Did the North Dakota Supreme Court identify the wording of the ND Constitution that this statute violates?  Or is this just another example of liberal judges slapping the term 'unconstitutional' onto anything they don't like in order to impose their lawless will onto the public at large?

[Smokin Joe]

Six weeks is the gestational level at which a fetal heartbeat can be detected. That is the reason for having the cutoff there.

"The North Dakota Constitution guarantees each individual, including women, the fundamental right to make medical judgments affecting his or her bodily integrity, health, and autonomy, in consultation with a chosen health care provider free from government interference," State District Judge Bruce Romanick wrote in the opinion.

    "This section necessarily and more specifically protects a woman's right to procreative autonomy – including to seek and obtain a pre-viability abortion," the judge said.
    Romanick also ruled that the law violates the state's constitution because it's too vague in defining exceptions to the ban.

https://www.axios.com/2024/09/12/north-dakota-abortion-ban

The argument could be made that one of those individuals (the unborn child) is NOT represented in the court, and no Guardian Ad Litem is appointed to plead their case. By virtue of genetic uniqueness, that unborn child is an individual, but deprived of any choice in their medical treatment whatsoever by the procedure.

The suit was brought by the one abortion clinic in the State, which has since relocated to Minnesota. There are no practicing abortion clinics in North Dakota.

Expect an Appeal, this is one judge, not the NDSC.

[jafo2010]

Fishrrman...

Looking back about 25 years from now, reasonable-minded folks are going to realize that "the right to life" of the unborn was actually MORE protected "under Roe" than it will become post-Dobbs.

This comment has zero merit.  There is nothing to base this statement on.    Abortion by definition reflects zero right to life.  We still have abortion, but as the article indicated, there are states that have put limitations in place.  Dobbs is actually saving lives that would have been murdered.

And I do not accept the nonsense a female does not know she is pregnant after six weeks.  That is one month of pregnancy.  Most women have a 28 day cycle+/- with ovulation occurring about Day 10-18 of their cycle.  Four weeks and no menstruation, they should know something is up.  It is the exception which is a very low number that does not fit in that characterization of what goes on in a woman's body that would not know they are pregnant

[Hoodat]

This comment has zero merit.  There is nothing to base this statement on.    Abortion by definition reflects zero right to life.  We still have abortion, but as the article indicated, there are states that have put limitations in place.  Dobbs is actually saving lives that would have been murdered.

Dobbs is allowing the citizens of each State society to determine for themselves how much life should be valued.  It is a basic freedom that our Founding Fathers coded into our US Constitution.  And for anyone to say we were better off under Roe is an attack on the very freedom that our Constitution provides.

Are we better off under Dobbs?  Absolutely.  Do the people of North Dakota now have the right to set their own State laws on abortion, unhindered by the tyranny of the federal courts?  Absolutely.  Except now, the people of North Dakota have to deal with the tyranny of their own State courts.  And in this case, a State judge has overridden the right of the people to establish their own laws and has done so purely on fiat (just like Roe).  It is yet one more obstacle towards realizing the liberty that our Founding Fathers intended.  As for North Dakota (as well as my own State), we are far closer to that self-determination under Dobbs than we were under Roe. 

The federal government needs to accept this as well.  While Dobbs has rightly shifted power back to the States, the federal government continues to act the same way.  Their taxpayer subsidies to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood continue to rise year after year even though they have been kicked out of several states.  North Dakota's allotment of that subsidy still flows to Planned Parenthood even though there is currently no abortion clinic left open in the State.  So Planned Parenthood uses that money to hire lawyers, find sympathetic judges to attack the freedom of North Dakota's society and impose their tyranny on that society.

We should never accept tyranny for political expendiency.  Never.  Roe was wrong.  The Supreme Court was right to overturn it.  And it matters to me not what other States choose to do.  All that's needed now is a President with the courage to do what is right and stop subsidizing the abortion industry.  Someone like Ted Cruz or Ron DeSantis.

[Fishrrman]

Hoodat wrote:
"We should never accept tyranny for political expendiency.  Never.  Roe was wrong.  The Supreme Court was right to overturn it.  And it matters to me not what other States choose to do.  All that's needed now is a President with the courage to do what is right and stop subsidizing the abortion industry."

You completely missed the point of my post above.

For an example, look at the state of Ohio.

Under Roe, before Dobbs, I believe there were abortions permitted under Ohio law, but with some restrictions.

Now -- after the leftists initiated (and got passed) a state constitutional amendment liberalizing abortion, there may actually be MORE abortions performed in OH, and later in pregnancies, than there were under Roe. I'm not IN Ohio, but wondering how late in the pregnancy the new amendment now permits?

So... although your argument may be the more "Constitutionally correct" (I'll freely agree to that)... the RESULTS aren't going to be what were expected nor intended by those who advocated the end of Roe.

It's called "Realpolitik".
And the left has clearly outmaneuvered the right on this one.

[Smokin Joe]

Hoodat wrote:
"We should never accept tyranny for political expendiency.  Never.  Roe was wrong.  The Supreme Court was right to overturn it.  And it matters to me not what other States choose to do.  All that's needed now is a President with the courage to do what is right and stop subsidizing the abortion industry."

You completely missed the point of my post above.

For an example, look at the state of Ohio.

Under Roe, before Dobbs, I believe there were abortions permitted under Ohio law, but with some restrictions.

Now -- after the leftists initiated (and got passed) a state constitutional amendment liberalizing abortion, there may actually be MORE abortions performed in OH, and later in pregnancies, than there were under Roe. I'm not IN Ohio, but wondering how late in the pregnancy the new amendment now permits?

So... although your argument may be the more "Constitutionally correct" (I'll freely agree to that)... the RESULTS aren't going to be what were expected nor intended by those who advocated the end of Roe.

It's called "Realpolitik".
And the left has clearly outmaneuvered the right on this one.

In some places, they will have far more liberal laws than before, in others, far less. The important thing is that the States have the power to limit the procedure--or ban it, if they have the will to do so. No one has argued that ectopic pregnancies and other situations where the choice is to remove the fetus or both the mother and child will die should go untreated.