On Monday, US District Court Judge Daniel Hovland granted a temporary injunction, barring HB 1456 (The Heartbeat Bill) from going into effect. HB 1456 would have banned abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which occurs around six weeks from conception.
Judge Hovland said, "There is no question that (the North Dakota law) is in direct contradiction to a litany of United States Supreme Court cases addressing restraints on abortion," and that, "(It) is clearly an invalid and unconstitutional law based on the United States Supreme Court precedent in Roe v. Wade from 1973 ... and the progeny of cases that have followed."
The Supreme Court did not grant the right to abortion without any restrictions in Roe v. Wade. That "right" to abortion is to be balanced with the state's interests. North Dakota has an interest in protecting life; and in the 40 years since Roe v. Wade, science and technology has evolved to a point where there is no denying that what is growing inside of a mother during pregnancy is a human being. We now know that by six weeks after conception, the unborn child's heart is pumping blood.
With that said, temporary injunctions to these types of laws in commonplace. We need to let the trial play out and hope that the court understands that a "right to privacy" does not trump a right to life; that we are not free to end a human life whenever it seems to be more convenient.
On Monday, Cass County District Court Judge Wickham Corwin declared a 2011 law banning the off-label use of a drug being used to produce an abortion. The ruling comes as no surprise, since Judge Corwin previously stated he would rule the law unconstitutional.
Judge Corwin's opinion on this case is extremely disturbing. Corwin not only makes up his own version of the North Dakota state constitution by insisting that it contains a right to abortion (it does not), but he asserts that this right to abortion is a fundamental right. The right to abortion that Judge Corwin has made up out of thin air is more expansive than what the Supreme Court of the United States created in Roe v. Wade.
In his opinion, Judge Corwin stated that, "the amendments violate the fundamental rights protected by the first and twelfth sections of article one of the Constitution of North Dakota." Corwin obviously forgot about the first of the "inalienable rights" listed in section one of the North Dakota state constitution, life. Judge Corwin talks about the right to pursue happiness and right to liberty, but conveniently tosses aside the right to life for all individuals; denying all preborn human beings of the first of all inalienable rights contained in our constitution.
Our state can not be held hostage by one judge who believes he can single-handedly change the constitution of our great state to fit his twisted worldview. We must believe that the Supreme Court of North Dakota is more competent than Judge Corwin and can understand that the right to life in our constitution, which pertains to all individuals, also pertains to unborn individuals.