North Dakota Judge Overturns State Abortion Ban

A North Dakota state judge struck down the state’s near-total abortion ban on Thursday, ruling that the state constitution guarantees a fundamental right to access abortion prior to fetal viability.

The law, which was enacted in April 2023, severely restricts abortion access with minimal exceptions. In his decision, District Judge Bruce Romanick noted that the legislation is too vague and infringes upon the rights of women as outlined in the state’s constitution.

Romanick’s ruling came in response to a legal challenge posed by the only abortion clinic in North Dakota at that time, which has since relocated to Minnesota. The state had sought to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that a trial would be pointless. In light of this argument, the judge had already canceled a trial scheduled for August.

“Pregnant women in North Dakota have a fundamental right to choose abortion before viability exists under the enumerated and unenumerated interests provided by the North Dakota Constitution,” wrote Romanick in his ruling.

He referenced the North Dakota Constitution’s promise of “inalienable rights,” including both “life and liberty.” The judge asserted that the state’s abortion laws infringe upon a woman’s right to make autonomous decisions regarding her reproduction, emphasizing that they are not constructed to effectively safeguard women’s health or protect unborn life.

Romanick elaborated, stating, “The abortion statutes at issue in this case infringe on a woman’s fundamental right to procreative autonomy and are not narrowly tailored to promote women’s health or to protect unborn human life.” He added that the law, as it currently stands, diminishes a woman’s liberty and her right to pursue safety and happiness.

A sitting judge since 2000, Romanick has consistently been reelected in a state historically dominated by Republicans, with his most current election occurring in 2018. Before ascending to the bench, he served as an assistant state attorney in Burleigh County, where Bismarck, the state capital, is located.

In his judgment, Romanick acknowledged that North Dakota courts had previously followed federal court precedents concerning abortion, but noted that these guidelines were shifted dramatically by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which had previously protected abortion rights at the federal level.

He expressed uncertainty about how the North Dakota Supreme Court might react to this matter, stating that his ruling was an attempt to best apply existing law while safeguarding the fundamental rights of residents.

Many aspects of Romanick’s judgment echo a 2019 ruling from the Kansas Supreme Court that also recognized access to abortion as a fundamental right under similar constitutional provisions. In that case, Kansas voters upheld the court’s position through a statewide vote in August 2022.

Romanick concluded that the state’s abortion law was overly vague, particularly regarding its exceptions. This vagueness could leave healthcare professionals vulnerable to prosecution based on differing interpretations of their medical judgments. North Dakota law previously permitted abortion only in cases of rape or incest, provided the pregnancy had lasted less than six weeks, and in situations where serious health risks to the woman were present.

The Red River Women’s Clinic, which initiated the lawsuit in 2022 against the trigger ban that was repealed soon after the fall of Roe v. Wade, subsequently relocated from Fargo to Moorhead, Minnesota. This move followed the new limitations imposed by the North Dakota law.

In 2023, the Republican-controlled legislature in North Dakota adjusted its abortion laws, permitting abortion in instances involving rape or incest but strictly within the first six weeks of gestation. Further amendments allowed for abortion later in the pregnancy only under specific medical crises.

Shortly after these legislative changes, the clinic, along with a coalition of medical professionals in obstetrics, gynecology, and maternal-fetal medicine, filed an amended complaint. This lawsuit contends that the abortion ban is inherently unconstitutional due to its vagueness regarding medical exceptions and that its health-related exceptions are excessively narrow.