The North Dakota Supreme Court heard arguments on whether a lower court ruling blocking the state’s abortion ban should remain.
District Judge Bruce Romanick said the law passed in the 2023 Legislature --- which prohibits abortion, except for the life of the woman or cases of rape or incest, limited to the first six weeks of pregnancy – was too vague, and goes against the state’s Constitution. Romanick ruled the Constitution protects a woman’s right to “pro-creative” autonomy, which would include the right to seek an abortion before the fetus is viable.
The state appealed that decision.
"Nothing in our history suggests our Constitution has ever been understood to guarantee abortions unrelated to the mother's life or health," Assistant North Dakota Attorney General Phil Axt told the Court. "They were illegal in this state before the Constitution was adopted, when it was adopted, and for nearly a century afterwards, until Roe. And it's not like those laws were unknown or unenforced. People were prosecuted under them. And the District Court didn't pretend to find otherwise."
Axt said the judge opined that the Constitution has it wrong.
"But deciding that our Constitution got it wrong is not the job of the courts," Axt said.
Attorney Meetra Mehdizadeh argued on behalf of the Center for Reproductive Rights. She focused on what she termed the vagueness of the abortion law.
"Doctors shouldn't have to face felony charges, and risk jail time, just to learn what the law allows them to do," Mehdizadeh told the Court. "It's the Legislature's job to tell them what the law allows them to do."
'The Supreme Court has taken the case under advisement.
There are currently no abortion clinics in North Dakota.
