On Women’s Rights

The 2009 ND Legislature passed HB 1371 directing abortion facilities to add statements regarding ultrasounds to the North Dakota Abortion Control Act. Women seeking abortion services at North Dakota’s only abortion provider, Red River Women’s Clinic, are read a list of statements required by the Act.

They include things such as the name of the physician performing the abortion, how far along the woman will be, the medical risks associated with the abortion procedure, etc. HB 1371 directs abortion facilities to now “offer the woman an opportunity to receive and view at the abortion facility or another facility an active ultrasound of her fetus.”

HB 1371 also contained the following sentence, “The auscultation of the fetal heart tone must be of a quality consistent with standard medical practice in the community.” This last statement was puzzling. We knew that offering the sound of a fetal heart tone was not what abortion providers across the country do. We also knew from our own experiences as women who have had babies that hearing the fetal heart tone was not the norm.

We contacted the Center for Reproductive Rights, a non-profit legal organization that represents abortion providers, and asked them to take a look at the language. They determined that the auscultation statement could be interpreted multiple ways – both by us and by a prosecuting attorney. Since there is criminal liability associated with NOT complying with the law – the Center decided to help us in gaining clarification on the law.

The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a challenge to the law, and a hearing was held in front of Judge Douglas Herman in Cass County District Court on July 30th, 2009. In the meantime, the media frenzy began. Many people mistakenly thought the clinic was challenging the law as a whole.

We received many nasty emails and phone calls from people telling us that we were wrong to challenge laws passed, that we were just looking to protect our profits, and one particularly judgmental email stated that you “make your biggest money off the ignorant and reckless [female] masses. You make money off the promiscuous behavior of immature teenagers and 20 something ‘party girls.’”

On August 12th, Judge Herman made his decision. Again – our request for an injunction was denied, BUT we had acquired the final clarity we needed. We could continue to provide safe, quality abortion services without fear of criminal liability. The judge, in his written opinion, agreed that the Act could be interpreted multiple ways. He went on to say, “Arguably, the Act would have been more easily understood if the problematic sentence had simply been omitted.” He also said that “The Clinic’s use of ultrasounds exceeds the standard of care in the provision of abortion care.”

The most interesting part of this whole saga is that not one single legislator contacted the clinic about this law as it was being written, debated or passed. If the intent of the Act was to ensure that women have the opportunity to view their ultrasound, why not contact the ONLY abortion provider in the state? It would be fairly simple to find out this information.

I am not naïve enough to believe that the authors and sponsors of this bill want to help women make better decisions. Testimony given during the hearing on this bill went so far as to claim that just because you tell a woman she’s pregnant, she doesn’t necessarily understand there’s a baby in her uterus. That’s funny, 60% of our patients have already had children. I’m pretty sure they know the definition of pregnancy.

So, what does all of this mean for the clinic? How will things change? We will read the required statements. We will continue to perform an ultrasound on every patient. We will continue to allow those women who want it the opportunity to view her ultrasound before her abortion. We will continue to be the only clinic in the state that is willing to provide abortions. We will continue to be a target of legislation that is meant to restrict access. Patients will continue to be harassed and intimidated as they enter our building. In other words, not much will change.

Questions and comments: hpr1.com