North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed three pro-life bills this morning, including one that would ban most abortions in the state. Dalrymple acknowledged a court battle is expected and asked state legislators to set aside funds to pay for the expenses.
The governor’s office released the following statement on the bills he signed:
“Gov. Jack Dalrymple today signed HB 1305, HB 1456 and SB 2305 and provided the following statements to the Legislature:
North Dakota House and Senate presiding officers:
I have signed HB 1305 which would ban abortions performed solely for the purpose of gender selection and genetic abnormalities.
I have signed HB 1456 which would ban abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat. 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. Because the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed state restrictions on the performing of abortions and because the Supreme Court has never considered this precise restriction in HB 1456, the constitutionality of this measure is an open question. The Legislative Assembly before it adjourns should appropriate dollars for a litigation fund available to the Attorney General.
I have signed SB 2305 which requires admitting and staff privileges at a nearby hospital for any physician who performs abortions in North Dakota. The added requirement that the hospital privileges must include allowing abortions to take place in their facility greatly increases the chances that this measure will face a court challenge. Nevertheless, it is a legitimate and new question for the courts regarding a precise restriction on doctors who perform abortions.”
CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!
Tammi Kromenaker, director of the Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo, the lone abortion business in the state, said it has contacted the Center for Reproductive Rights, a pro-abortion legal group, to put together a lawsuit against the measure.
Leading pro-life groups are concerned the measure would only entrench legalized abortion further. The legal case would perhaps give a pro-abortion dominated Supreme Court or lower courts a chance to reaffirm the Roe v. Wade decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions in 1973. Knowing that, they say a better strategy is supporting pro-life Senate candidates and electing a pro-life president in 2016 — paving the way for new Supreme Court justices who could overturn Roe or uphold such an abortion ban.
