A judge in North Dakota ruled Thursday that the state’s stringent abortion law is unconstitutionally vague and violates the rights of residents.
North Dakota district Judge Bruce Romanick’s ruling legalizes abortion in a deep-red state where no abortion clinics are currently operating.
“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” Romanick wrote.
An abortion clinic that has since left the state and a group of physicians filed a lawsuit to strike down the state’s abortion ban. North Dakota’s current law bans abortion in all cases except rape or incest, provided the mother has been pregnant for less than six weeks, or the mother’s life is at risk. The Center for Reproductive Rights, a pro-abortion legal group that challenges state-level bans, filed the lawsuit and celebrated the ruling.
“This is a win for reproductive freedom, and means it is now much safer to be pregnant in North Dakota,” said Meetra Mehdizadeh, an attorney for the organization. “Hospitals and doctors no longer have their hands tied and can provide abortions to patients with complications.”
Like many other red states, North Dakota passed the abortion ban following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, sending abortion legalization back to the states. The Supreme Court’s ruling galvanized pro-abortion activists and turned abortion into a top issue this election cycle. Last year, pro-abortion groups won multiple ballot referendums in red states due to well-funded campaigns and messaging tied to individual liberty.
“The losers today are the unborn children and their moms and dads, not any activists. There’s no winner in this,” said pro-life GOP state senator Janne Myrdal, the North Dakota Monitor reported.
Romanick determined that North Dakota’s abortion law makes it unclear to physicians what the medical standards are for performing abortions in cases of medical exceptions to the ban. He also said the law infringes on constitutionally protected rights of abortion physicians and patients under article one, sections one and 25 of the state’s constitution.
Acknowledging the fact that his ruling could be overturned on appeal, Romanick said the Supreme Court’s ruling meant that federal precedents relied upon for North Dakota precedent were no longer applicable, and he did not know how the state’s highest court would rule on the issue.
An elected official, Romanick was first elected in 2000 and won a third six-year term in 2018. He announced earlier this year that he will be retiring after a quarter century on the bench.