State requests judge to suspend ruling that overturned North Dakota’s abortion ban

In North Dakota, the state government is seeking to pause a recent court ruling that declared the state’s abortion ban unconstitutional. This request comes after State District Judge Bruce Romanick ruled that the ban was “unconstitutionally void for vagueness” and recognized the fundamental right of pregnant women to access abortion services prior to viability according to the state constitution.

The motion to stay the ruling was filed by state officials on Wednesday, as they prepare to appeal the decision in the North Dakota Supreme Court. The state’s attorneys assert that “a stay is warranted until a decision and mandate has been issued by the North Dakota Supreme Court from the appeal that the State will be promptly pursuing.” They emphasize that the case presents complex and unprecedented legal issues.

The landscape of abortion rights in the United States shifted dramatically following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 2022 to overturn Roe v. Wade, which had established a constitutional right to abortion. In the wake of this change, the only abortion clinic in North Dakota relocated from Fargo to Moorhead, Minnesota. This clinic subsequently challenged North Dakota’s previously enacted trigger ban that prohibited most abortions.

In 2023, amid ongoing litigation, the Republican-controlled Legislature in North Dakota amended its abortion laws. The new law criminalized the performance of all abortions as a felony, with exceptions only in critical cases to save a pregnant woman’s life or in instances of rape or incest, but only within six weeks of gestation. This law came into effect in April 2023.

The Red River Women’s Clinic, along with several medical professionals, filed a legal challenge against the revised law, arguing that it was unconstitutionally vague and that its health exception was excessively narrow. During court proceedings in July, shortly before a scheduled trial, the state moved to dismiss the lawsuit, while the plaintiffs requested to proceed with the trial set for August. However, Judge Romanick canceled the trial and subsequently ruled the law unconstitutional, although he has not yet issued a final judgment in the case.

Marc Hearron, a senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, expressed opposition to the state’s motion for a stay. He emphasized that the state could choose not to appeal and criticized the notion that a stay was necessary. Hearron remarked, “This decision is not leading any time soon to clinics reopening across the state,” and he stressed the importance of allowing medical professionals to deliver essential, time-sensitive health care without undue interference from the state.

Republican State Senator Janne Myrdal, who sponsored the 2023 abortion bill, expressed strong confidence that the state Supreme Court would reverse Judge Romanick’s ruling. She characterized the judge’s decision as one of the poorest legal conclusions she has ever read, asserting that it was heavily influenced by personal opinions rather than sound legal reasoning.

Reflecting on the ruling, Judge Romanick noted that the court grappled with public health implications regarding a crucial issue that has been reshaped by the judiciary. He pointed out that longstanding federal precedents influencing previous rulings had been overturned, leaving uncertainties about how the appellate court within the state might tackle the matter going forward.