SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
'Unconstitutional': Judge Strikes Down Nation's Most Restrictive Abortion Law
"The court was correct to call this law exactly what it is: a blatant violation of the constitutional guarantees afforded to all women," says reproductive rights group
Apr 17, 2014
A federal judge on Wednesday struck down North Dakota's "fetal heartbeat" law, seen as the most restrictive abortion ban in the country.
The law, House Bill 1456, essentially banned abortions at six weeks. Barring a medical emergency, the law said that an abortion could not be performed if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which can happen as early as six weeks -- a point at which a woman may not even know she is pregnant.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Daniel L. Hovland writes that "there is no question that North Dakota House Bill 1456 is in direct contradiction of United States Supreme Court case law addressing restraints on abortion. H.B. 1456 is an invalid and unconstitutional law based on the United States Supreme Court precedent in Roe v. Wade from 1973, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey from 1992, and the litany of cases that have followed."
North Dakota's law, therefore, "cannot withstand a constitutional challenge."
In contrast to the Supreme Court's decision, North Dakota posited that "viability occurs at the point of conception," yet the state "has presented no reliable medical evidence to justify the passage of this troubling law," Hovland's decision states.
The Center for Reproductive Rights, which had filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the law on behalf of the state's only abortion-providing clinic, welcomed the ruling.
Hovland's decision "puts a stop to this attempt by North Dakota politicians to send the women of their state back to the dark days before Roe v. Wade, when reproductive health care options were limited at best and deadly at worst," stated Nancy Northup, president and CEO with the Center for Reproductive Rights.
"The court was correct to call this law exactly what it is: a blatant violation of the constitutional guarantees afforded to all women. But women should not be forced to go to court, year after year in state after state, to protect their constitutional rights," Northup continued. "We hope today's decision, along with the long line of decisions striking down these attempts to choke off access to safe and legal abortion services in the U.S., sends a strong message to politicians across the country that our rights cannot be legislated away."
Yet reproductive rights in North Dakota face further challenges, with the state Supreme Court still reviewing a ban on medication abortion. In addition, in November North Dakota voters will decide if personhood rights should be granted to embryos from the moment of fertilization.
____________________
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. If you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A federal judge on Wednesday struck down North Dakota's "fetal heartbeat" law, seen as the most restrictive abortion ban in the country.
The law, House Bill 1456, essentially banned abortions at six weeks. Barring a medical emergency, the law said that an abortion could not be performed if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which can happen as early as six weeks -- a point at which a woman may not even know she is pregnant.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Daniel L. Hovland writes that "there is no question that North Dakota House Bill 1456 is in direct contradiction of United States Supreme Court case law addressing restraints on abortion. H.B. 1456 is an invalid and unconstitutional law based on the United States Supreme Court precedent in Roe v. Wade from 1973, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey from 1992, and the litany of cases that have followed."
North Dakota's law, therefore, "cannot withstand a constitutional challenge."
In contrast to the Supreme Court's decision, North Dakota posited that "viability occurs at the point of conception," yet the state "has presented no reliable medical evidence to justify the passage of this troubling law," Hovland's decision states.
The Center for Reproductive Rights, which had filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the law on behalf of the state's only abortion-providing clinic, welcomed the ruling.
Hovland's decision "puts a stop to this attempt by North Dakota politicians to send the women of their state back to the dark days before Roe v. Wade, when reproductive health care options were limited at best and deadly at worst," stated Nancy Northup, president and CEO with the Center for Reproductive Rights.
"The court was correct to call this law exactly what it is: a blatant violation of the constitutional guarantees afforded to all women. But women should not be forced to go to court, year after year in state after state, to protect their constitutional rights," Northup continued. "We hope today's decision, along with the long line of decisions striking down these attempts to choke off access to safe and legal abortion services in the U.S., sends a strong message to politicians across the country that our rights cannot be legislated away."
Yet reproductive rights in North Dakota face further challenges, with the state Supreme Court still reviewing a ban on medication abortion. In addition, in November North Dakota voters will decide if personhood rights should be granted to embryos from the moment of fertilization.
____________________
A federal judge on Wednesday struck down North Dakota's "fetal heartbeat" law, seen as the most restrictive abortion ban in the country.
The law, House Bill 1456, essentially banned abortions at six weeks. Barring a medical emergency, the law said that an abortion could not be performed if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which can happen as early as six weeks -- a point at which a woman may not even know she is pregnant.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Daniel L. Hovland writes that "there is no question that North Dakota House Bill 1456 is in direct contradiction of United States Supreme Court case law addressing restraints on abortion. H.B. 1456 is an invalid and unconstitutional law based on the United States Supreme Court precedent in Roe v. Wade from 1973, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey from 1992, and the litany of cases that have followed."
North Dakota's law, therefore, "cannot withstand a constitutional challenge."
In contrast to the Supreme Court's decision, North Dakota posited that "viability occurs at the point of conception," yet the state "has presented no reliable medical evidence to justify the passage of this troubling law," Hovland's decision states.
The Center for Reproductive Rights, which had filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the law on behalf of the state's only abortion-providing clinic, welcomed the ruling.
Hovland's decision "puts a stop to this attempt by North Dakota politicians to send the women of their state back to the dark days before Roe v. Wade, when reproductive health care options were limited at best and deadly at worst," stated Nancy Northup, president and CEO with the Center for Reproductive Rights.
"The court was correct to call this law exactly what it is: a blatant violation of the constitutional guarantees afforded to all women. But women should not be forced to go to court, year after year in state after state, to protect their constitutional rights," Northup continued. "We hope today's decision, along with the long line of decisions striking down these attempts to choke off access to safe and legal abortion services in the U.S., sends a strong message to politicians across the country that our rights cannot be legislated away."
Yet reproductive rights in North Dakota face further challenges, with the state Supreme Court still reviewing a ban on medication abortion. In addition, in November North Dakota voters will decide if personhood rights should be granted to embryos from the moment of fertilization.
____________________
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy