U.S. Abortion Laws by State

Hostile

North Dakota

North Dakota argues that it can enforce its total abortion ban with limited exceptions, which a trial court found unconstitutional in September 2024.

State Legal Details

Bans in Effect

  • Gestational Ban, Viability
  • Method Ban
  • Telemedicine Ban

Bans Enjoined

  • Gestational Ban, Total Ban

Restrictions in Effect

  • Biased Counseling Requirement
  • Mandatory Ultrasound Requirement
  • Parental Involvement, Parental Consent Requirement
  • TRAP Requirements: Facilities, Facility Requirements
  • TRAP requirements: Providers, Admitting Privilege Requirement
  • TRAP requirements: Providers, Reporting Requirement
  • Waiting Period Requirement

Restrictions

In September 2024, a trial court found that the North Dakota’s total abortion ban is both unconstitutionally void for vagueness and violates pregnant people’s fundamental right to access abortion care.1 North Dakota had previously enforced a total ban on abortion, enacted in 2023, which prohibited abortion at all stages of pregnancy, except in the case of death or serious health risk.2 Survivors and victims of rape and incest can obtain abortions up to six weeks gestation.3

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization4, North Dakota attempted to enforce its trigger ban,5 which was subject to an injunction6 until the state repealed and replaced it with the current total ban.7

North Dakota has repealed other laws related to abortion including the state’s gestational bans at six weeks,8 twenty weeks post-fertilization,9, the ban on D&E procedures10, and the ban on abortions sought for reasons of sex or diagnosed or potential genetic abnormalities.11 The state retains gestational bans on abortion after viability12 and prohibits D&X procedures.13 North Dakota law continues to include requirements that pregnant people must undergo a mandatory twenty-four-hour waiting period,14 biased counseling,15 and be given the offer of having and viewing an ultrasound;16 as well as prohibitions on public funding,17 and private insurance coverage.18 The state continues to require that both living parents, legal guardians,19 or a judge20 consent to a minor’s abortion.

North Dakota retains targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws including requirements related to facilities,21 admitting privileges,22 and reporting.23 North Dakota law continues to restrict the provision of abortion care to licensed physicians24 and still restricts providers from using telemedicine for the provision of abortion care.25 Providers who violate North Dakota’s abortion restrictions may face civil and criminal penalties.26

State Protections

North Dakota law does not include express constitutional or statutory protections for abortion. To the contrary, North Dakota’s policy preference to ban abortion to the fullest extent of the law: “[b]etween normal childbirth and abortion, it is the policy of the state of North Dakota that normal childbirth is to be given preference, encouragement, and support by law and by state action, it being in the best interests of the well-being and common good of North Dakota citizens.”27 The state Supreme Court established that the constitutional rights to life and safety do include the right to an abortion, however only when an abortion is necessary to preserve the person’s like or health.28

Post-Roe Prohibitions

In 2023, North Dakota repealed its 2007 trigger ban, 29 replacing it with a total ban. However, the state repealed its pre-Roe ban in 1973.30

Conclusion

Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe, North Dakota argues that it can enforce its total abortion ban with limited exceptions, which a trial court found unconstitutional in September 2024.

  1. Access Indep. Health Serv. Inc v. Wrigley, No. 08-2022-CV-1608 (N.D. S. Cent. Dist. Ct. Sept. 12, 2024) (finding the ban unconstitutional). ↩︎
  2. N.D. Cent. Code u00a7 12.1-19.1-02. See Access Indep. Health Serv. Inc. v. Wrigley, No. 08-2022-CV-01608 (N.D. S. Cent. Dist. Ct. Jan. 23, 2024) (order denying defendantu2019s motion to strike and denying preliminary injunction). ↩︎
  3. Id. ↩︎
  4. Dobbs v. Jackson Womenu2019s Health Org., 597 U.S (June 24, 2022), revu2019d Dobbs v. Jackson Womenu2019s Health Org., 945 F.3d 265, 274 (5th Cir. 2019). ↩︎
  5. N.D. Cent. Code u00a7 12.1-31-12, amended by 2019 N. D. Laws ch. 126 (H.B. 1546); Letter from Drew Wrigley, Attu2019y Gen., to John Bjornson, Dir. N.D. Leg. Council (Jun. 28, 2022) https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/sites/ag/files/ documents/MediaAttachments/John%20Bjornson-LegislativeCouncil.pdf. ↩︎
  6. Access Indep. Health Serv. Inc v. Wrigley, No. 08-2022-CV-1608 (N.D. S. Cent. Dist. Ct. Oct 31, 2022) (confirming the preliminary injunction). Wrigley v. Romanick, et al., 2023 N.D. 50, No. 20220260, 1 (N.D. Mar. 16, 2023). ↩︎
  7. S.B. 2150, 68th Leg. Sess., Reg. Sess. (N.D. 2023). ↩︎
  8. N.D. CENT. CODE u00a7 14u201302.1-05.2(1), repealed by S.B. 2150, 68th Leg. Sess., Reg. Sess. (N.D. 2023). ↩︎
  9. Id. u00a7 14-02.1-05.3(3), repealed by S.B. 2150, 68th Leg. Sess., Reg. Sess. (N.D. 2023). ↩︎
  10. Id. u00a7 14-02.1-04.2(2), repealed by S.B. 2150, 68th Leg. Sess., Reg. Sess. (N.D. 2023). ↩︎
  11. Id. u00a7 14-02.1-04.1(1), repealed by S.B. 2150, 68th Leg. Sess., Reg. Sess. (N.D. 2023). ↩︎
  12. Id. u00a7 14-02.1-03(2). ↩︎
  13. N.D. CENT. CODE u00a7 14-02.6-02(1). ↩︎
  14. Id. u00a7u00a7 14-02.1-03(1), 14-02.1-02(11)(a). ↩︎
  15. Id. u00a7 14-02.1-02(11)(a)(2); id. u00a714-02.1-02(11)(b)(5), invalidated by Am. Med. Ass’n v. Stenehjem, 412 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (D.N.D. 2019). ↩︎
  16. N.D. CENT. CODE u00a7 14-02.1-04-(4). ↩︎
  17. N.D. CENT. CODE u00a7 14-02.3-01(3); u00a7 15-10-48(1)(b)(3); u00a7 15-10-49(1)(b)(3); N.D. ADMIN. CODE 75-02-02-08(2)(i); 2021 N.D. SB 2030. ↩︎
  18. N.D. CENT. CODE u00a7 14-02.3-03. ↩︎
  19. Id.u00a7 14-02.1-03.1(1)(a). ↩︎
  20. Id. u00a7 14-02.1-03.1(2). ↩︎
  21. Id. u00a7 14-02.1-04(2), invalidated by Miks v. Olson, No. CIV.A3-82-78, 1983 WL 869578, at *1 (D.N.D. Aug. 25, 1983); see also, N.D. CENT. CODE u00a7 14-02.1-04(3). ↩︎
  22. Id. u00a7 14-02.1-04(1). ↩︎
  23. N.D. CENT. CODE u00a7 14-02.1-07. ↩︎
  24. Id. u00a7 14-02.1-04(1). ↩︎
  25. Id. u00a7 14-02.1-03.5(5). ↩︎
  26. See, e.g., id. u00a7u00a7 14-02.1-03.2;14-02.6-02(1). ↩︎
  27. Id. u00a7 14-02.3-01(1). ↩︎
  28. Wrigley v. Romanick, 2023 ND 50, u00b6 27, 988 N.W.2d 231, 242 (N.D. 2023). ↩︎
  29. N.D. CENT. CODE u00a7 12.1-31-12, amended by 2019 N. D. Laws ch. 126 (H.B. 1546),repealed by S.B. 2150, 68th Leg. Sess., Reg. Sess. (N.D. 2023). ↩︎
  30. N.D. CENT. CODE u00a7u00a7 12-25-01, 12-25-02 (1970), repealed by 1973 N.D. Laws 300, ch. 116, u00a741. ↩︎