The states home to the United States’ harshest abortion restrictions, North Dakota and Arkansas, are both facing legal challenges over their new laws — and in both states, those battles have begun to advance this week.

In North Dakota, reproductive rights activists filed a lawsuit on Wednesday to challenge a measure that threatens to shut down the last remaining abortion clinic in the state. And in Arkansas, a district judge sided with abortion providers on Wednesday, denying the state’s request to drop the lawsuit against its new 12-week abortion ban and allowing the doctors’ challenge against it to continue.

The Center for Reproductive Rights, a New York-based group that assists with litigation to defend women’s right to legal abortion, is also preparing to file suit against several other new anti-choice laws in North Dakota — including a measure that criminalizes abortions after just six weeks of pregnancy. Taken together, all of the new restrictions that North Dakota enacted this session would make it more difficult for women to terminate their pregnancies there than anywhere else in the country.

“‘With their relentless campaign to end safe and legal abortion in North Dakota, lawmakers have effectively told the women of their state, ‘We don’t care about your health, we don’t care about your safety, and we sure don’t care about your constitutional and human rights,’ ” the group’s president, Nancy Northrup, said in a statement this week. “Our message back to politicians hostile to reproductive rights in North Dakota and nationwide is crystal clear: We are going to fight back relentlessly against your attacks on the women of your state.”

When anti-choice lawmakers in North Dakota and Arkansas enacted the new abortion bans earlier this year, they were fully aware that those laws would spark court battles. In fact, North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R) even admitted that he decided to sign an unconstitutional six-week abortion ban exactly because he wanted to entangle his state in a legal fight that could “discover the boundaries of Roe v. Wade.” This session, Republican lawmakers — who used to prefer to indirectly undermine women’s reproductive rights — are now favoring more direct attacks that they hope could eventually land the abortion issue back in the Supreme Court.

Of course, those fights don’t come without a cost. North Dakota’s attorney general has already requested an addition $400,000 dollars to defend its abortion bans in court. If abortion-related lawsuits drag on over several years, as they have in Kansas, costs can top $1 million dollars.

Last month, North Dakota enacted the most stringent abortion restriction in the nation: a radical “fetal heartbeat” ban to criminalize all abortion services after just six weeks of pregnancy. Women’s health advocates are preparing to fight the unconstitutional law in court, and North Dakota has already requested a $400,000 budget increase to fund those legal battles.

But in case the new heartbeat law is struck down, abortion opponents in the state have hedged their bets. The legislature passed a package of multiple abortion restrictions in March — including a 20-week abortion ban, the same type of legislation that has popped up in about eight states across the country over the past several years. On Tuesday night, Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R) signed the 20-week ban into law.

20-week abortion bans are based on the scientifically disputed notion that fetuses can feel pain after that point. These type of measures aren’t quite as blatantly unconstitutional as North Dakota’s six-week ban, but — since Roe v. Wade grants abortion rights until the point of viability, which is typically defined around 24 weeks of pregnancy — they certainly still invite their own legal challenges. The “fetal pain” measures in Georgia and Arizona are currently being blocked from taking effect while courts consider whether they run afoul of Roe‘s constitutional protections.

However, since North Dakota’s fetal pain measure does have a better chance of surviving in court than its six-week ban does, abortion opponents in the state have made a calculated move. No matter what happens with the more stringent restrictions, North Dakota could still successfully chip away at women’s reproductive rights. And that strategy — chipping away at Roe little by little, and using late-term abortion bans to slowly narrow the window for women to legally access abortion services — is working. In 2010, not a single state banned abortion services at or before 20 weeks of pregnancy. Now, 12 states do.

Late-term abortion bans are a popular anti-choice tactic partly because they successfully play on Americans’ emotions. Abortion opponents can leverage gruesome cases like Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortion doctor currently on trial for murder after performing illegal, late-term abortions, to push bans based on the assumption that late-term abortion procedures are always horrific and immoral. In reality, these types of later abortions are very rare, and the women who seek them typically fall into two categories: economically disadvantaged women who have to delay abortion while they save up the money to pay for it, and women who discover serious health issues that weren’t made apparent earlier in their pregnancy. Pushing to ban these type of abortion services actually represents a movement to outlaw reproductive health care for women in the most desperate of circumstances.

Rep. Bette Grande, one of the primary backers of North Dakota’s new unconstitutional abortion ban, is no stranger to anti-choice efforts to coerce women out of their decision to terminate a pregnancy. Four years ago, she spearheaded the state’s forced ultrasound law. Since then, she says young women have told her they decided not to go through with having an abortion after seeing an ultrasound image of the fetus.

Despite the fact that those women are solidly in the minority — several studies have shown that mandatory waiting periods, counseling sessions, and ultrasounds don’t actually change women’s minds about their decision to have an abortion — Grande is now extending that logic to apply to her state’s harsh new abortion restrictions.

Earlier this year, North Dakota enacted the strictest abortion restriction in the nation: a so-called “heartbeat” ban to outlaw all abortion services after a fetal heartbeat can first be detected, which typically occurs around six weeks of pregnancy. The state is already preparing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend the law in court. But Grande is confident that, regardless of the outcome of that legal fight, the fetal heartbeat law will ultimately “give people the opportunity to realize that there is a beating heart.” She believes that will effectively convince women that they don’t want to have an abortion after all:

Grande, a Methodist and Republican state representative from Fargo, believes the intense national publicity surrounding the fetal heartbeat abortion ban has brought new awareness and understanding to the issue.

“It does give people the opportunity to realize that there is a beating heart,” even in a fetus as young as six weeks, Grande said. “People are recognizing that.” [...]

But lawsuits can take years to resolve, and the publicity that will be generated during the dispute can itself be valuable to changing public opinion and ultimately stopping abortion, Grande said.

“I appreciate the fact that it will change hearts and minds,” she said.

In fact, abortion bans do not prevent women from choosing to terminate a pregnancy; rather, they simply eliminate women’s safe and legal options. The Guttmacher Institute has found that the legality of abortion services have absolutely no correlation to abortion rates worldwide. When women don’t have the opportunity and the means to safely terminate a pregnancy, they are forced to resort to dangerous, illegal abortions — and those unsafe procedures lead to an estimated 47,000 preventable deaths around the world.

Although Grande is framing North Dakota’s six-week abortion ban as a compassionate law that will help women realize what’s best for them, women can make up their own minds about their health care. Nearly 90 percent of women who seek abortion care are “highly confident” about their decision to terminate a pregnancy before going to a clinic. Instead of helping women make the right choice for them, the heartbeat ban would actually prevent North Dakota women from being able to access their full range of reproductive health options — particularly because many women have not yet realized they are pregnant at just six weeks — which could lead desperate women to turn to desperate measures.

Last month, North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R) approved the most stringent abortion restrictions in the nation, including a “fetal heartbeat” ban that outlaws abortion services after just six weeks of pregnancy. Women’s health advocates warned that the unconstitutional heartbeat measure would end up in court, but Dalrymple didn’t care. In fact, the governor admitted he signed the legislation specifically because he wants to invite a legal battle that could test the limits of Roe v. Wade.

But that battle won’t come without some kind of cost. North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem has requested a $400,000 budget increase to defend any lawsuits that arise from the new abortion bans. On Wednesday, the state’s Senate Appropriations Committe voted unanimously to approve that request, which will now head to the full legislature for consideration.

Even the Republican lawmakers who define themselves as fiscal conservatives aren’t necessarily concerned about the potential costs of North Dakota’s abortion litigation. “We have a lot of important things to spend money on, but I didn’t give any consideration to the cost,” state Sen. Dwight Cook (R), who chairs the Senate Finance and Taxation Committee, said of the potential lawsuits over the new laws. “I don’t look at it from the financial side of things; I look at it from the life side of things,” Rep. Bette Grande (R), who introduced the heartbeat measure, explained.

Grande also noted that the fear of potential lawsuits shouldn’t deter other states from passing their own laws challenging Roe v. Wade. Lawmakers in Arkansas are taking that advice to heart. At the beginning of March, the Arkansas legislature overrode their governor to enact a 12-week abortion ban that now awaits its own day in court.

On Tuesday, North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R) approved a package of strict abortion restrictions, including an unconstitutional six-week abortion ban and a measure intended to force the state’s last abortion clinic to close its doors.

In an interview with the Associated Press, the governor admitted that he didn’t sign the legislation based on “any religious belief or personal experience” that compels him to oppose abortion — instead, he’s simply trying to entangle the state in a legal battle that could eventually have big implications for Roe v. Wade:

“Although the likelihood of this measure surviving a court challenge remains in question, this bill is nevertheless a legitimate attempt by a state legislature to discover the boundaries of Roe v. Wade,” Dalrymple said in a statement, referring to the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion up to until a fetus is considered viable — usually at 22 to 24 weeks. [...]

Dalrymple seemed determined to open a legal debate on the legislation, acknowledging the constitutionality of the measure was an open question. He asked the Legislature to set aside money for a “litigation fund” that would allow the state’s attorney general to defend the measure against lawsuits.

He said he didn’t know how much the likely court fight would cost. But, he said money wasn’t the issue.

It’s no secret that the anti-abortion community is hoping to use a state-level strategy to strike down the constitutional protections in Roe, imposing increasingly stricter bans they hope will eventually lead to a Supreme Court challenge. But Republican lawmakers haven’t typically been quite as open about their ultimate goals, instead choosing to couch their language in messages about women’s health and safety. This legislative session, however, anti-choice legislators are less concerned about tiptoeing around their intentions for Roe — despite the fact that 70 percent of Americans currently oppose overturning the court decision.

Whereas the legal fights over the past several years have largely centered on 20-week abortion bans, which shave about 2 to 4 weeks off of the constitutionally protected window for legally terminating a pregnancy, the goalposts have now been moved significantly. North Dakota and Arkansas have practically been tripping over each other to see which state can undermine Roe with the harshest restriction on abortion — Arkansas pushed back the cut-off for legal abortion services to just 12 weeks of pregnancy, and North Dakota topped that with its 6-week ban.

Elizabeth Nash, the states issue manager for the Guttmacher Institute, explained to Bloomberg that states are displaying a new boldness, even in the face of clearly unconstitutional abortion bans. Although grassroots efforts like the push for “personhood” — which seeks to ban abortion altogether by defining life at conception — have always pushed the envelope, state legislatures have typically been more wary to advance laws that are likely be struck down in court. But that’s not necessarily the case anymore. “There’s this sense of one-upmanship going in the states,” Nash said. “If you asked me two years ago would a state do something like this, I would have said no.”

On Tuesday afternoon, North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R) signed into law three different abortion restrictions — HB 1305, HB 1456, and SB 2305 — that women’s health advocates say will effectively ban abortion in the state. The extreme legislation that has received the most media attention is HB 1456, an unconstitutional “fetal heartbeat” ban that would outlaw abortions after just six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even realize they’re pregnant. But when it comes to the new laws’ concrete effect on the lives of women in North Dakota, a lesser-known piece of legislation may actually pose an even bigger threat to reproductive rights.

North Dakota women will feel the immediate impact of SB 2305, which indirectly targets abortion access by over-regulating abortion providers — a popular anti-choice tactic known as the Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers, or TRAP. Abortion opponents push TRAP laws with the ultimate goal of forcing abortion clinics to close their doors.

TRAP laws are cleverly framed in terms of ensuring women’s safety, but they’re actually incredibly effective methods of cutting off access to reproductive care at health clinics. That’s why Tammi Kromenaker, the director of North Dakota’s last remaining abortion clinic, told RH Reality Check that SB 2305 could actually represent the most serious threat to women’s abortion services in the state:

“We definitely see the TRAP bill as the one that will end abortion in the state,” Tammi Kromenaker, the director of Red River Women’s Clinic (RRWC), told RH Reality Check. RRWC is the only abortion clinic in North Dakota. “The other bills aren’t really a threat right now, but this one could close us.” [...]

These bills have drawn attention away from the true threat to RRWC: Under the new TRAP bill, abortion providers would be forced to obtain hospital admitting privileges. But at least one of the two local hospitals won’t offer those privileges to the clinic — because the quality of care at RRWC is so high that the clinic doesn’t need them.

Lawmakers proposed the bill under the guise of “women’s safety,” but Kromenaker points out that her clinic’s safety record is actually better than the average clinic safety records, showing that the “need” for the bill was completely fabricated. “This bill is intended to impose an impossible to meet requirement,” she said. “There is no other goal but to shut us down.”

North Dakota’s new six-week ban will likely be tied up in court for going much too far to undermine the constitutional protections in Roe v. Wade, which guarantees the right to first-trimester abortion services. And an even more radical “personhood” amendment, which could ban all abortions altogether if voters approve it on the 2014 November ballot, will face similar legal challenges if it becomes law. On the other hand, SB 2305 could force the Red River Women’s Clinic to close its doors relatively quickly — just like similar legislation has done to health clinics in other states.
Read more

On Tuesday, North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple (R) officially signed into law three of the most radical anti-abortion bills in the nation. It will now be illegal for women in North Dakota to get an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, while the only abortion provider in the state will likely be forced to shut down entirely. The governor also signed a law specifically forcing women whose fetuses have genetic defects to carry them to term.

Dalrymple signed the bills even after protests erupted all over the state yesterday to stand against the extreme anti-choice restrictions. Republican lawmakers broke from their party to speak out against the bills, warning they go too far. While testifying in front of the North Dakota legislature, one doctor warned that these new restrictions would force women to seek out the dangerous, backroom abortions that were common in the pre-Roe era.

North Dakota now leads the charge in state-level attacks against women’s rights; their new “fetal heartbeat” ban surpasses even Arkansas’ 12-week ban. The new restrictions also expose the state to costly legal battles, as the laws stand in direct opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court’s iconic ruling on Roe v. Wade.

Dalrymple will also consider signing a widely debunked “fetal pain” bill passed by the legislature.

A package of stringent abortion restrictions is expected to hit North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple’s (R) desk early this week — including a “heartbeat” measure that would outlaw abortion at just six weeks of pregnancy, legislation that would force the state’s last remaining abortion clinic to close its doors, and a first-of-its kind ban on abortions due to genetic abnormalities.

But North Dakota residents are fighting back against their lawmakers’ war on women’s health, urging Dalrymple to reject the proposed abortion restrictions. On Monday afternoon, approximately 300 people — including some Republican state lawmakers who oppose their colleagues’ recent anti-choice agenda, saying their fellow legislators have “stepped over the line” with the extreme abortion bans — gathered in Bismarck, ND for a “Stand Up For Women” rally. Protestors hoped to communicate that North Dakota will not condone more attacks on reproductive freedom.

Republican Rep. Kathy Hawken and Republican Sen. Judy Lee, who broke from their party this session to oppose the stringent abortion restrictions because they go too far to threaten women’s health care in the state, both attended the rally in Bismarck. Women’s health advocates flocked to the steps of the state capitol building, brandishing signs declaring “VETO,” “Trust Women,” and “Stop The War On Women” (all photos via Stand Up For Women):

Read more

North Dakota lawmakers voted on Friday afternoon to pass a “personhood” abortion ban, which would endow fertilized eggs with all the rights of U.S. citizens and effectively outlaw abortion. The measure, which passed the Senate last month, passed the House by a 57-35 vote and now heads to a ballot vote, likely in the next November election.

A personhood ban could have far-reaching consequences even beyond abortion care, since it will charge doctors who damage embryos with criminal negligence. Doctors in the state say it will also prevent them from performing in vitro fertilization, and some medical professionals have vowed to leave the state if it is signed into law.

Personhood measures are so extreme that some pro-life Republicans in the state have come out against them, planning to join a pro-choice rally in the state capital on Monday to oppose the far-right abortion restriction. “We have stepped over the line,” Republican state Rep. Kathy Hawken (R-Fargo) said of the recent push to pass personhood. “North Dakota hasn’t even passed a primary seatbelt law, but we have the most invasive attack on women’s health anywhere.”

Personhood advocates have pushed their agenda in states throughout the country over the past several years, but their measures have so far been unable to advance. Anti-choice lawmakers in North Dakota, who have already pushed through a stringent six-week abortion ban, were actually considering two different types of personhood legislation — one to immediately amend the state’s constitution to redefine life as beginning at conception, and one to put a personhood amendment on the ballot. The House voted down the first and passed the second.

North Dakota lawmakers recently passed the worst abortion ban in the nation, outlawing the legal medical procedure after just six weeks of pregnancy, and are currently advancing an even more stringent “personhood” restriction to ban all abortion services altogether. But not all of the state’s legislators support North Dakota’s recent shift toward a far-right anti-abortion agenda. Spearheaded by state Rep. Kathy Hawken (R), a group a Republican politicians are speaking out against the new affronts to women’s reproductive rights.

Hawken and her fellow GOP lawmakers think their party has “stepped over the line” with the new restrictions, and will join a “Stand Up for Women” rally on Monday to raise their voices in opposition. As Hawken explained to the Huffington Post, she believes the new bans are too extreme, and simply distract lawmakers from the real legislative priorities they ought to be tackling in North Dakota:

“It’s to say, hey, this isn’t okay. We have stepped over the line,” said state Rep. Kathy Hawken (R-Fargo) in a phone interview with The Huffington Post. “One of the key tenets of the Republican Party is personal responsibility. I’m personally pro-life, but I vote pro-choice, because you can’t make that decision for anyone else. You just can’t.” [...]

Hawken said the personhood bills are so extreme that she and approximately 10 of her Republican colleagues in the state legislature — both men and women — were inspired to speak out in defense of women’s rights.

“North Dakota hasn’t even passed a primary seatbelt law, but we have the most invasive attack on womens health anywhere,” she said. “I got a letter yesterday from a pharmacist who said, ‘We don’t want to be in jail because we prescribed something!’ We’re spending an inordinate amount of time on social or personal issues, however you want to put it, but we haven’t done anything on property tax relief, higher education funding, fixing the roads. There are all kinds of other things we need to be doing besides this.”

Now that the 2012 elections have passed, anti-abortion groups have been pressuring Republicans to focus on advancing their agenda in the new legislative session. GOP lawmakers have complied in states like North Dakota, Arkansas, and Kansas — but as Hawken and her colleagues reveal, the legislation that’s cropping up this year is going too far even for some members of the Republican party.

Hawken described herself as a “strong fiscal conservative” and noted that she’s not thrilled about the prospect of spending state money to defend abortion restrictions in court. That’s the same reason Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe (D) chose to veto the new abortion restrictions in his state, although the anti-choice lawmakers overrode him to enact those unconstitutional bans anyway.