JULY 29, 2024:
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A trial looming in a lawsuit challenging North Dakota’s abortion ban was canceled Monday (July 29, 2024) as the judge in the case weighs whether to throw out the lawsuit. It was not immediately clear why the trial was canceled.
State District Judge Bruce Romanick issued a notice to parties regarding trial saying the Aug. 26-30, 2024, trial is canceled and will be removed from the calendar. The notice comes nearly a week after the state and plaintiffs, who include the formerly sole abortion clinic in North Dakota, made their pitches to the judge as to why he should dismiss the two-year-old case, or continue to trial.
Romanick’s notice said he will issue “full findings on summary judgment and/or a new notice of trial as soon as possible following this Notice.” He also stayed pending trial deadlines for various court filings until further notice.
A spokesperson for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents the plaintiffs, said their side did not immediately know anything beyond the notice.
North Dakota outlaws abortion as a felony crime for people who perform the procedure, but with exceptions to prevent the mother’s death or a “serious health risk” to her, as well as for cases of rape or incest within the first six weeks.
The plaintiffs alleged the abortion ban violates the state constitution because it is unconstitutionally vague about its exceptions for doctors and that its health exception is too narrow. They wanted the trial to proceed.
The Associated Press sent a text message to North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley.
The state had motioned for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint in the lawsuit originally brought in 2022 by the Red River Women’s Clinic. Special Assistant Attorney General Dan Gaustad said in court last week that the plaintiffs’ case is built on hypotheticals, that the clinic and its medical director — now in Minnesota — lack standing, and that a trial would not make a difference.
The Red River Women’s Clinic filed the original lawsuit against the state’s now-repealed trigger ban, soon after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade. The clinic afterward moved from Fargo, North Dakota, to neighboring Moorhead, Minnesota. In 2023, North Dakota’s Republican-controlled Legislature revised the state’s abortion laws. Soon after that, the clinic, joined by doctors in obstetrics, gynecology and maternal-fetal medicine, filed an amended complaint.
JULY 23, 2024:
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Attorneys have argued over whether a North Dakota judge should dismiss a lawsuit challenging the state’s abortion ban before trial. An attorney for the state said the plaintiffs’ case rests on hypotheticals. The plaintiffs’ attorney said key issues remain to be resolved at trial. The court trial is scheduled for late August 2024. State District Judge Bruce Romanick says he will rule as quickly as he can, but he also asked the plaintiffs’ attorney what difference he would have at trial. The lawsuit, originally filed in 2022 by North Dakota’s former sole abortion provider, claims the state’s revised abortion ban is unconstitutional.
DECEMBER 22, 2023:
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A North Dakota judge said Wednesday (Dec. 20, 2023) he will decide soon whether to temporarily block a part of the state’s revised abortion laws so doctors can perform the procedure to save a patient’s life or health.
The request for a preliminary injunction asks state District Court Judge Bruce Romanick to bar the state from enforcing the law against physicians who use their “good-faith medical judgment” to perform an abortion because of pregnancy complications that could pose “a risk of infection, hemorrhage, high blood pressure, or which otherwise makes continuing a pregnancy unsafe.”
North Dakota outlaws all abortions, except in cases where women could face death or a “serious health risk.” People who perform abortions could be charged with a felony under the law, but patients would not.
Physicians, to mitigate risk of prosecution, “feel like they must delay offering abortions to their patients until the patients’ health has declined to the point where other physicians could not plausibly disagree that it was necessary to provide an abortion,” Center for Reproductive Rights attorney Meetra Mehdizadeh said.
“Patients and physicians have experienced significant harm,” she said. “For patients, the denial of their constitutional rights and forced additional health risks; and for physicians, the harm of having the threat of criminal prosecution hanging over their head every time they treat a patient with a medical complication.”
The state’s revised abortion laws also provide an exception for pregnancies caused by rape and incest, but only in the first six weeks, before many women know they are pregnant. It also allows for treatment of ectopic and molar pregnancies, which are nonviable situations.
Special Assistant Attorney General Dan Gaustad cited the plaintiffs’ “seven-month delay” in seeking a preliminary injunction, and he disputed the “good-faith medical judgment” language. He told the judge the plaintiffs are asking him “to modify and rewrite the statute under the guise of a preliminary injunction.” The law uses ”reasonable medical judgment.”
The Red River Women’s Clinic sued the state last year after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which overturned the court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling establishing a nationwide right to abortion. The lawsuit targeted the state’s since-repealed trigger ban — a ban designed to go into effect immediately if the court overturned Roe v. Wade — as unconstitutional. The clinic moved from Fargo to neighboring Moorhead, Minnesota, where abortion is legal.
The judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking the ban from taking effect last year, which the state Supreme Court upheld in March.
Chief Justice Jon Jensen wrote in the court’s March decision that “it is clear the citizens of North Dakota have a right to enjoy and defend life and a right to pursue and obtain safety, which necessarily includes a pregnant woman has a fundamental right to obtain an abortion to preserve her life or her health.”
Soon afterward, North Dakota’s Republican-controlled Legislature passed a bill revising the state’s abortion laws, which Gov. Doug Burgum signed into effect in April.
In June, the clinic filed an amended complaint, joined by several doctors in obstetrics, gynecology and maternal-fetal medicine. A jury trial is scheduled for August 2024.
NOVEMBER 14, 2023:
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A North Dakota judge has ruled that he won’t immediately block the state’s ban on gender-affirming health care for minors, delivering an early setback to families who want the new law found unconstitutional. District Judge Jackson Lofgren on Monday (Nov. 13, 2023) denied a temporary restraining order the plaintiffs had requested. They’ve also asked for a preliminary injunction that would temporarily block enforcement of the law as their case proceeds. A hearing is set for January for that request. Lofgren cited the plaintiffs’ “nearly five-month delay” in filing their complaint, and their argument hinging “upon inclusion in a protected class not previously recognized by the North Dakota Supreme Court or a new application of state constitutional principles.”
SEPTEMBER 15, 2023:
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Three families and a pediatrician in North Dakota are seeking to block the state’s ban on gender-affirming health care for minors. The law passed overwhelmingly earlier this year through the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature, and took effect in April when Republican Gov. Doug Burgum signed the bill. The ban includes criminal penalties for health care providers who perform sex reassignment surgeries or prescribe hormone treatments or puberty blockers for minors. One plaintiff family from Fargo says gender-affirming care has improved their child’s wellbeing, but the ban has led them to receive care in Minnesota, farther away, and consider moving out of North Dakota.
MAY 8, 2023:
UNDATED (AP)- North Dakota’s Republican Gov. Doug Burgum has signed a bill into law that allows public school teachers and state government employees to ignore the pronouns their transgender students and colleagues use, the governor’s office announced Monday (May 8, 2023).
The new law also requires teachers to tell a parent or legal guardian if the student identifies as transgender. It also prohibits transgender students from using the bathroom of their choice without prior approval from a parent or guardian.
It is effective immediately.
Burgum said in a statement that the new law “largely codifies existing practices while reaffirming the First Amendment right to free speech … balancing the rights and interests of students, parents and teachers.”
Opponents countered that the state’s Republican leaders are violating the constitutional rights of students and teachers by compelling the speech of adults and potentially exposing children to dangerous repercussions if an abusive parent doesn’t approve.
“Mandatory outing of a student’s trans identity violates their privacy rights at school – particularly for trans youth who cannot be safe at home. And creating a supportive working and learning environment also requires treating people with dignity and respect, including – at a minimum – calling them by the name and pronouns they want to use. These are both unlawful and discriminatory practices,” said Cody Schuler, advocacy manager of the American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota.
Supporters have said the measure boosts parental rights and brings peace of mind to teachers. Others said the governor should have done more to limit trans rights.
It’s only the latest measure restricting trans rights that Burgum signed after they were passed by North Dakota’s House and Senate with veto-proof majorities, part of a larger push by Republican officials nationwide to roll back the rights of their LGBTQ+ constituents.
Other new North Dakota laws prohibit transgender girls and women from joining female sports teams, from K-12 through college. They criminalize health care providers who give gender-affirming care to minors. And they limit transgender children and adults in accessing the bathrooms, locker rooms and showers of their choice, from schools to state-run colleges and correctional facilities.
At least 21 states have restricted or banned female transgender athletes’ participation in female sports, and at least 14 states have restricted or banned gender-affirming care for minors. Additionally, at least eight states have enacted laws preventing transgender people from using the restrooms associated with their gender identities.
APRIL 20, 2023:
Extended version:
Comments