Physicians Challenge Revised Law in Bid to Safeguard Medical Judgement for Saving Patients' Lives
A judge in North Dakota is set to rule soon on whether to temporarily halt the enforcement of a section of the state's updated abortion law, which limits doctors' ability to perform the procedure unless it is deemed necessary to protect a patient’s life or health. Physicians, alongside the former sole abortion provider in the state, have requested the intervention of District Court Judge Bruce Romanick to prevent the law from being applied against doctors acting on their "good-faith medical judgment" in cases where complications during pregnancy could endanger a patient’s well-being.
The law bans nearly all abortions in North Dakota, with exceptions only for cases where the mother’s life is at risk or she faces "serious health complications." Under the current statute, anyone performing an abortion could face felony charges, though patients themselves would not be prosecuted.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that, under the law, doctors are forced to delay performing abortions until the patient's health deteriorates to a point where it is indisputable that the procedure is necessary. “Patients and physicians have suffered significant harm,” said attorney Meetra Mehdizadeh of the Center for Reproductive Rights. She highlighted the emotional and physical toll on patients being denied their rights, as well as the fear of criminal prosecution looming over physicians providing necessary care.
The law permits abortions in cases of rape or incest, but only within the first six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even realise they are expecting. It also allows for treatment in cases of ectopic and molar pregnancies, where the fetus is nonviable.
State attorney Dan Gaustad opposed the request for the preliminary injunction, noting that the plaintiffs had waited for seven months before seeking action. He also challenged the “good-faith medical judgment” provision, arguing that the plaintiffs were attempting to modify the statute under the guise of a temporary injunction. The law, Gaustad contended, uses the term “reasonable medical judgment,” not "good-faith."
The legal battle began after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, which overturned the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling and allowed individual states to set their own abortion laws. Following this, the Red River Women’s Clinic filed a lawsuit against the state’s trigger ban, which was designed to go into effect if Roe v. Wade were overturned. The clinic, which had previously operated in Fargo, relocated to Moorhead, Minnesota, where abortion remains legal.
Last year, a judge granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state’s ban from taking effect, a decision upheld by the North Dakota Supreme Court in March 2023. In the ruling, Chief Justice Jon Jensen affirmed that North Dakota citizens have the right to life and safety, including the fundamental right for pregnant women to seek an abortion to protect their life or health.
Following this, the state legislature passed a revised abortion law, which Governor Doug Burgum signed in April. In June, the clinic filed an amended complaint with support from various doctors, including specialists in obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine. A jury trial for the case is set for August 2024.
Hello world!
Pic of the week: Sunset at margate beach
The first day’s journey was through the pink fields
The first day’s journey was through the pink fields
The first day’s journey was through the pink fields