Abortion could be considered murder under fetal personhood proposal in North Dakota
A crowd listens to Ginna Cross, an out-of-state anti-abortion advocate, testify in favor of a bill to define a human being to include an unborn child on Feb. 5, 2025. (Mary Steurer/North Dakota Monitor)
North Dakota lawmakers are weighing whether to allow women who obtain abortions to be charged with murder.
House Bill 1373, referred to as a 'personhood bill,' would define a human being to include an unborn child in state laws relating to murder, assault and wrongful death lawsuits. The bill would also establish that an unborn child exists at the moment of fertilization.
Rep. Lori VanWinkle, R-Minot, is the bill's lead sponsor. She said the Legislature's prior attempts to restrict abortion did not go far enough.
'This is a commonsense bill that will close a loophole that has allowed the murder of innocent lives to continue in this state,' she told the House Human Services Committee during a Wednesday hearing on the bill.
No other states have passed a law like House Bill 1373 before, Ginna Cross, founder of an anti-abortion organization based in Wisconsin, said during the hearing.
Abortion rights supporters said the bill would hand down severe punishments to what should be considered a personal choice.
Even some members of the public who self-identified as anti-abortion said the bill could unfairly punish women who are coerced into seeking them, or who receive medical care for life-threatening pregnancy complications.
Bradley Pierce, president of the Foundation to Abolish Abortion and a resident of Texas, said there's no need to worry about malicious prosecution if the bill passes because people would stop getting abortions altogether.
'It's never gonna happen in the first place,' he said.
The bill contains exceptions for the unintentional death of a fetus resulting from:
Ordinary medical procedures performed during diagnostic testing of a pregnancy
Procedures to save the life of a mother, so long as those procedures are done alongside 'reasonable steps to save the life of the unborn child'
Spontaneous miscarriage
The proposal does not elaborate on what terms like 'reasonable steps' or 'spontaneous miscarriage' mean.
Some medical providers specializing in vitro fertilization and other fertility services spoke against the bill. They said If the bill is passed as currently written, it would be impossible for those services to continue in North Dakota. The exemptions are not specific enough to give providers confidence that they wouldn't face prosecution or lawsuits, they added.
Birth control, IVF protection needed in face of attacks, North Dakota bill sponsor says
Supporters of House Bill 1373 maintained the bill would not criminalize necessary medical care, nor would it significantly affect IVF clinics.
Chris Dodson, general counsel and co-director of the North Dakota Catholic Conference, also spoke against the bill.
The North Dakota Catholic Conference opposes abortion, but does not believe in punishing women who seek them, he said.
He also called the proposal 'obviously unconstitutional' and 'ultimately pointless.'
The law would not survive in the courts, but forcing the state to defend it against litigation could waste hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money, he said.
North Dakota's two previous laws restricting abortion access were challenged in court. The most recent of the two, which was adopted in 2023, was declared unconstitutional and voided by a district court judge last year. The state appealed the decision, which is now being reviewed by the North Dakota Supreme Court.
North Dakotans rejected a similar personhood proposal in 2014. A ballot measure to add language establishing fetal personhood in the state constitution was voted down by roughly 64% of voters.
A separate proposal heard by the House Human Services Committee on Wednesday, House Bill 1488, would legalize abortions for any reason through week 15 in pregnancy.
The bill is proposed by Rep. Eric Murphy, a Grand Forks Republican.
GOP lawmaker to propose bill preserving some abortion access in North Dakota
He said the abortion bans in North Dakota and across the country have prevented doctors from taking care of their patients.
He referenced reports by ProPublica that found women in Texas have died because doctors were too afraid to treat their miscarriages under their state's abortion law.
'This, my colleagues, is not pro-life,' Murphy said.
Murphy proposes allowing elective abortions up to week 15, and for later-term abortions to be decided by committees of doctors.
Abortions between weeks 16 and 26 would only be legal if done for a medical purpose, including a serious health risk to the mother, according to the bill.
In order to perform abortions at this stage of pregnancy, health care professionals would need approval from a three-member committee of doctors appointed by their hospital.
Those committees would also approve any abortions sought after week 26, though only if the abortion is deemed medically required.
Doctors wouldn't need approval from a committee to provide abortions in emergency situations, the bill states.
Murphy said obstetricians have told him they were reluctant to perform abortions under North Dakota's previous health care ban even when their patients faced severe pregnancy complications, because they feared they would be charged with a crime.
'These laws have meaning and they have consequences,' he said. 'And when physicians aren't willing to cross a line, people die.'
The bill is opposed by several anti-abortion groups, including the North Dakota Catholic Conference and North Dakota Family Alliance Legislative Action.
Some medical professionals who support abortion access also spoke against the proposal.
Ana Tobiasz, an obstetrician/gynecologist, said doctors still would be reluctant to perform medically necessary abortions under the bill.
'While I appreciate that the bill sponsor's intent was to attempt to moderate North Dakota's dangerous abortion laws, including SB 2150 passed last session, I have several concerns about this legislation,' she said. 'HB 1488 does not resolve the vagueness of the serious health risk exception. It contains the same definition that has been successfully challenged in the North Dakota courts.'
The committee did not take action on either bill on Wednesday.
Last week, a legislative committee heard testimony on two bills from Rep. Karla Rose Hanson, D-Fargo, that seek to protect contraceptives and IVF. No action has been taken on those bills, either.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Louisiana Legislature targets out-of-state doctors who provide abortion pills
Packages of Mifepristone tablets are displayed at a family planning clinic on April 13, 2023 in Rockville, Maryland. (Photo illustration by) The Louisiana Legislature has approved a bill targeting out-of-state abortion-inducing drug providers, giving more time to individuals who want to sue someone who performed, attempted to perform or substantially facilitated an abortion. The legislation is part of an effort from anti-abortion advocates to crack down on doctors who ship abortion-inducing medication to states where the procedure is illegal. In nearly all instances, abortion has been illegal in Louisiana since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022. House Bill 575 by Rep. Lauren Ventrella, R-Greenwell Springs, easily passed both chambers. She dubbed her proposal the 'Justice for Victims of Abortion Drug Dealers Act,' though it would apply to all forms of the procedure. It extends the window for abortion lawsuits from three years to five years and allows out-of-state doctors and activists to be sued. The bill will become law unless vetoed by Gov. Jeff Landry, which is unlikely. Ventrella's bill has the support of Attorney General Liz Murrill, who is currently prosecuting a case against a New York doctor accused of providing abortion-inducing medication to the mother of a pregnant minor in West Baton Rouge Parish. Gov. Kathy Hoschul has refused to extradite the doctor to Louisiana to face charges, citing New York's shield laws. The doctor and the minor's mother were both indicted. Murrill has alleged the minor was coerced to take the medication, though her mother was not charged with this crime. Ventrella's legislation was substantially whittled down throughout the legislative process. In its original state, it would have allowed the 'mother of the unborn child,' her parents, the man who impregnated her and his parents as potential plaintiffs. The man would have been unable to sue if the pregnancy was the result of rape, sexual assault or incest. The measure also would have allowed the plaintiffs to sue anybody who facilitated the abortion, with this term originally being undefined. It also would have allowed drug manufacturers to be sued. The legislation received bipartisan pushback, with multiple lawmakers raising privacy concerns. Last year, Louisiana lawmakers classified mifepristone and misoprostol as controlled dangerous substances. Both are used in medication abortions but also have other uses, including to stop life-threatening postpartum hemorrhages. Medical professionals opposed the move, warning the designation could make the drugs more difficult to access in time-sensitive medical crises. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Manchester school board warns language in budget trailer bill could cost city schools $10.2M
The Manchester school board is sending a letter to state legislators sounding the alarm about a small section — six lines, to be exact — in the state budget trailer bill (HB 2) that would cost the school district approximately $10.2 million next fiscal year. Page 70 of the bill includes language establishing what is essentially a cap on targeted aid for larger school districts. For districts with 5,000 or more students, the bill seeks to subtract from targeted state aid until the amount decreases to $3,750 per student. The cap would effectively cut Manchester's adequacy aid from $127.8 million under current law to just under $117.6 million — a cut of more than $10.2 million. By comparison, the city of Nashua would see its targeted aid jump by more than $1.2 million under the new language, from $83.2 million to $84.4 million. 'As far as we can tell, Manchester is the only municipality in New Hampshire that stands to lose money because of this cap on targeted aid,' the letter from Manchester's school board to the Legislature's Committee of Conference says. 'Such a loss would put at risk our ability to best serve the educational needs of our students.' The state's education aid formula was tweaked in response to Manchester getting a bonus from the introduction of the Extraordinary Needs Grant in 2021, a more than $30 million annual increase. The amendment limits that bonus and will lead to Manchester getting more than $10 million less than it gets now. The amendment received support from members of both parties, because the $10 million is being shared by other income- and property-poor communities like Berlin, Claremont and Franklin. Manchester Mayor Jay Ruais said Tuesday he has been in contact with some of the committee members, who will likely begin meeting later this week. "I am reaching out to the conferees to gather information and develop a course of action to address this issue," Ruais said. School board member Bob Baines, a former mayor and educator, said he spoke to Gov. Kelly Ayotte about the targeted cap last week. 'We've been in touch with various representatives, but this needs to be watched very, very carefully in the (Legislature's) Committee of Conference,' Baines said. 'Can you imagine the devastation that will occur in Manchester, the most significant devastation possible in our public schools. We all need to work on that with our representatives, because I think in any big government bill — no matter how big and beautiful it is — some people don't read it and don't understand. 'Why would Manchester be singled out as the only community in the state of New Hampshire that would lose funding? If you care about Manchester, we should get that funding — we planned on it.' School board member Sean Parr drafted the letter and gathered the signatures of fellow board members this week. 'We are hoping to reach out to the Committee of Conference to let them know that it has this particular effect only on Manchester,' Parr said. 'I think it would be good for us to at least explain the situation, tell them that it's a significant impact to our budget in its current form, and to ask that they reconsider that part of the budget proposal.' In the letter, school board members urge committee members to reconsider the 'targeted cap' portion of the bill, warning the proposed budget could lead to 'harmful cuts and reductions to student services.' School officials point out that despite being the largest school district in New Hampshire with nearly 12,000 students, Manchester ranks at the bottom of the state in per-pupil spending, with over 53% of students qualifying for free and reduced-price meals, 20% multilingual learners, and 23% special education students. 'The proposed reductions would therefore have devastating consequences for our students, our educators, and ultimately, the future of our city,' the letter says. 'We welcome the opportunity to engage in continued dialogue, and we hope that you will collaborate in crafting a budget that reflects the values, priorities, and long-term vision of a thriving state with excellent public schools.' pfeely@
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
State plans to decrease its payments to the needy
PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) — The South Dakota Department of Social Services has announced its intention to cut by 10% the amount of welfare aid paid to several thousand households receiving public assistance. DSS will hold a public hearing on Friday, June 20, at 11:00 a.m. CT at state government's new One Stop Center at 1501 S. Highline Avenue in Sioux Falls. The number of South Dakota families receiving payments from the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program varies month to month, according to DSS statistics. In April, the most recent month for which data was publicly reported, there were 2,487 families. That was down from a 12-month high of 2,567 in October. New Spring Creek owner shares golf course plans The department's proposed TANF cuts come at the same time that the Legislature gave state government employees a 1.25% pay raise that takes effect July 1. State aid to K-12 education and for health-care providers will rise 1.25% as well. DSS officials say the proposed cuts result from the Legislature reducing the department's general funding for the coming year by $5.3 million. Actually, then-Gov. Kristi Noem had recommended in her December budget proposal a $5,168,200 general-fund reduction for the economic assistance division in DSS that oversees TANF payments. The department, in turn, planned to use a similar additional amount of federal funds as an offset, according to page 20 of a presentation made on January 21 to the Legislature's Joint Committee on Appropriations. That presentation referred to the maneuver as 'Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Fund Swap.' The document made no mention of any proposed cut to TANF payments. The department's then-chief financial officer, Jason Simmons, didn't speak about it either. 'This year, in working with the governor's office and BFM (Bureau of Finance and Management), with revenues down and having to fund things like FMAP (federal medical assistance percentage) change and different things, our directive is to spend down some of that carryover. So this would be more of a temporary solution,' Simmons told the committee. He continued, 'This is not something that we're going to be able to do for many, many years, but it's something we can do in a pinch for a few years to get us through, to spend down that carryover and continue to deliver these services.' Five minutes later, DSS Secretary Matt Althoff expanded on those remarks. Responding to a question from Democratic Rep. Erik Muckey, Althoff said, 'We're going to examine our benefits and say, Is there a way we can reduce those as well? So we'll continue to look at that. We've got a preliminary plan that, as recommended, would take effect July first.' One of the panel's co-chairs, Republican Rep. Mike Derby, asked Simmons to go through the mechanics of the TANF fund swap one more time. Simmons explained that money left over from the federal block grant that the department receives each year can be placed in a carryover account. Simmons said the department gets $21.2 million of federal funds each year and state government puts in $8.5 million for a total TANF funding of $29.7 million. At the end of fiscal 2024, the department had $23.4 million of carryover funds available. Simmons said the plan was to tap the federal carryover to offset reductions in state general funds, spending the oldest layer of federal funds first. Noem's $34,665,498 recommendation of general funds for the new budget year that starts July 1 would have returned the division's general funding to roughly the $34,415,895 actually spent in 2024. State lawmakers in March ultimately appropriated $34,517,352 of general funds to the economic assistance division for the 2026 budget year. That was slightly more than the amount actually spent in 2024 and slightly less than the amount Noem had recommended. Asked Monday about the proposed TANF cuts, Republican Sen. Ernie Otten told KELOLAND News that he expects to see the department make reductions in other areas too. Otten and Derby co-chair the Legislature's Joint Committee on Appropriations that assembles state government's budget each year. DSS never came back to the committee with a detailed plan or a change from what they presented, according to information that Derby received from the Legislature's chief fiscal analyst Jeff Mehlhaff and forwarded on Tuesday to KELOLAND News. Mehlhaff told Derby, 'We have reached out to the Secretary of DSS multiple times with no response.' An average of 2,460 households per month received TANF payments during the 2024 budget year, according to the DSS fiscal note that was prepared for the proposed 10% cut. The average monthly amount was $518.06. Altogether, those payments totaled $15,293,131.20 in annual TANF costs, the department said, and a reduction of 10% from the current TANF payment standards equals $1,529,313.12. A statement signed by Secretary Althoff says the proposed financial cuts in TANF payments would have 'no impact' on small businesses. 'TANF is a needs-based program for families with children under age 18 (or under age 19 if the child is in high school) who need financial support because of the death of a parent; a parent is absent from the home; or the physical or mental incapacity or unemployment of a with serious financial needs may qualify for TANF monthly payments,' the statement says. Public comments at the June 20 hearing about the TANF reductions can be made in person at the Sioux Falls One Stop Center or by telephone at 1-605-679-7263 and using conference code 183 579 146 #. Written public comments can be sent through June 30 to Teresa Schulte, Administrative Rules C219, Department of Social Services, 1501 S. Highline Ave., Sioux Falls, SD 57110 or can be emailed to DSSAdminRules@ Many lawmakers also were upset during the 2025 legislative session after learning about the Noem administration's decisions to enter long-term leases for new One Stop centers in Sioux Falls and Rapid City. Most of state government's local offices including those of DSS in the two communities have since moved to the centers. Noem resigned as governor in January after she received U.S. Senate confirmation as the new federal Homeland Security secretary. After she left, the Legislature unanimously adopted a new law requiring lawmakers' approval of any lease longer than 15 years and costing more than $5 million in total or more than $50,000 per month. Leases for One Stop centers in Sioux Falls and Rapid City are for 30 years and will cost an estimated $200 million more during that time than had state government continued with previous leases for locations scattered throughout the communities. The new law however doesn't apply to any past lease agreements. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
