North Dakota just slammed the brakes on abortion access with a legal twist that’s got both sides fired up.
The Daily Caller reported that a near-total ban on abortions is back in effect as of Friday after the state’s supreme court couldn’t muster enough votes to keep it struck down as unconstitutional.
This saga kicked off when the law, signed by then-Gov. Doug Burgum, in April 2023, prohibited nearly all abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or medical emergencies within the first six weeks of pregnancy. It’s a tight window, and critics have long argued it’s unworkable in practice.
Fast forward to September 2024, when a district court judge tossed the law out, calling it too vague to stand under the state constitution. That seemed like a win for abortion access—until Friday’s reversal.
The state supreme court stepped in, and here’s the kicker: three of the five justices agreed the law was problematic, but North Dakota demands a supermajority of four votes to strike down legislation. Without that fourth vote, the ban snapped back into place quicker than a rubber band.
Interestingly, all three justices who opposed the law were appointed by Republican governors, showing that even within conservative ranks, this issue isn’t black-and-white. It’s a reminder that principles, not party lines, sometimes drive the bench.
With this ruling, North Dakota joins 13 other states where abortion is restricted at every stage of pregnancy. Keep in mind, the state hasn’t had a facility performing legal abortions since 2022, so this law just cements an already barren landscape.
Republican state Sen. Janne Myrdal, the bill’s sponsor, couldn’t be happier with the outcome. “Thrilled and grateful that two justices that are highly respected saw the truth of the matter, that this is fully constitutional for the mother and for the unborn child,” Myrdal said. Truth or not, that “mother” label might raise eyebrows among those who prefer more neutral terms.
Speaking of language, the ACLU of North Dakota fired back on social media, avoiding “woman” or “mother” in favor of “pregnant people.” Their stance? It’s about healthcare, not politics, though one might argue their word choice is its own kind of statement.
“Abortion shouldn’t be a political issue. It’s a health care issue,” the ACLU of North Dakota posted on X. Fine words, but let’s be real—abortion has been a political football for decades, and no amount of reframing will change that overnight.
On the flip side, pro-life advocates are celebrating like it’s a national holiday. Students for Life of America cheered on X, calling the decision a victory for protecting babies. Their enthusiasm is palpable, though it sidesteps the messy question of how exceptions play out in real life.
Then there’s Republican Attorney General Drew Wrigley, who defended the law with gusto. He framed the court’s decision as a duty-bound win for state legislation, emphasizing the responsibility to uphold North Dakota’s laws. It’s a safe, by-the-book take, but it doesn’t address the human cost of restricted access.
Let’s not forget who signed this law—Doug Burgum, now U.S. Secretary of the Interior under President Trump, after being a contender for Trump’s running mate.
His signature on this bill ties it to a broader conservative push that’s been gaining steam for years.
North Dakota’s political landscape leans hard right, with no Democratic governor since 1992, so it’s no shock that such a restrictive policy found fertile ground here.
The state’s lawmakers, like Myrdal, see this as protecting life, while opponents argue it’s a step backward for personal freedom.
At the end of the day, this ruling isn’t just about one law—it’s a snapshot of a national divide that’s nowhere near resolution. North Dakota’s ban is back, and with it, a debate that’s as old as it is intractable. The question remains: will legal challenges keep coming, or is this the final word for now?
