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.
____________________
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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.