By Isabelle Wilson-
Dakota’s recent ban on almost all abortions, except in cases of rape in the early weeks of pregnancy, is grossly unfair to women who have been raped later in their pregnancy, and lacks common sense, empathy, and consideration. It needs to be urgently reviewed.
The recent anti-abortion laws following The Supreme Court decision reflects a country gone mad by succumbing to Republican ideologies initiated by Donald Trump during his chaotic reign as U.S president. The irrationality is so plainly obvious, one can only wonder how this is occurring in America. Almost as crazy as the failure to change gun laws which have wreaked harvoc on the lives of so many families, anti-abortion laws are selfish in every sense.
Governors presiding over these laws are religious maniacs not in the right minds, surely.
The new law appears to be an improvement on its version in Texas because it takes into account rape victims, but is still highly limited since its considerations are limited to the early weeks.
Gov. Doug Burgum (pictured)signed the ban with narrow exceptions:. Abortion is legal in pregnancies caused by rape or incest, but only in the first six weeks. Abortion is also allowed deeper into pregnancy in specific medical emergencies. The law is intended to replace a previous ban that is not being enforced while a state court weighs the previous ban’s constitutionality.
The law, which makes it a felony for a doctor to perform an abortion, provides other exceptions including to save the life of the mother or in cases where her health is at serious risk.
However, more ridiculously, rape and incest victims would have to carry their pregnancies to term unless “the probable gestational age of the unborn child is six weeks or less,” Senate Bill 2150 says.
It comes nearly a year after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade ruling and a nationwide right to abortion, actions by lawmakers and courts — and the interplay between them — have created confusion on the state of play. pregnancy in specific medical emergencies.
The law is intended to replace a previous ban that is not being enforced while a state court weighs the previous ban’s constitutionality.
The state adopted a “trigger law” in 2007 to ban abortion in the event that Roe was overturned, but a judge said the blanket abortion ban could not be enforced while courts decided if it complies with the state constitution. In March, the state Supreme Court kept enforcement on hold, leaving in place a ban on abortion after 22 weeks of pregnancy.
The director of Red River Women’s Clinic, which issued proceedings over the previous ban, said lawyers at the Center for Reproductive Rights are assessing the new law and considering whether to challenge it in court, too.
Trigger Law
The state adopted a “trigger law” in 2007 to ban abortion in the event that Roe was overturned, but shortly after last year’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health ruling, a judge said the blanket abortion ban could not be enforced while courts decided if it complies with the state constitution. In March, the state Supreme Court kept enforcement on hold.
Thirteen other states have in place bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy, while four other states have bans throughout pregnancy where enforcement is blocked by courts.
The majority of these bans were adopted in anticipation of Roe being overturned, and most do not have exceptions for rape or incest.
While the bill’s sponsor and lawyers critical of it say the law is now in effect, the state attorney general was not available Tuesday to comment on how and when the state would enforce the new law.
The director of Red River Women’s Clinic, which sued over the previous ban, said lawyers at the Center for Reproductive Rights are assessing the new law and considering whether to challenge it in court, too.
The director, Tammi Kromenaker, said in a message to The Associated Press that the new law leads patients to “wonder if they are doing something criminal by accessing healthcare. No patient should be faced with that feeling.”
In a statement Tuesday, Center for Reproductive Rights director Elisabeth Smith suggested there could be grounds to challenge the new law.
“North Dakota lawmakers are attempting to bypass the state constitution and court system with this total ban,” Smith said. “They are simply trying to repackage a ban that the North Dakota Supreme Court recently said likely violates North Dakotans’ fundamental rights under the state constitution.”
Unfair
It is widely considered to be grossly unfair, particularly in its limited exception for cases of rape in the early weeks of pregnancy. One critic is Nancy Northup, the president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, who said in a statement, “It’s cruel and unconstitutional to ban abortion before viability and particularly to do so without an exception for cases of rape or incest.”
North Dakota state representative Ruth Buffalo, a Democrat who is a member of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, also criticized the law. In a statement, Buffalo said, “As a woman and a mother, I find this law deeply troubling. It will not stop abortions, but rather force them underground and further endanger the health and safety of women.”
One of the main criticisms of North Dakota’s abortion ban is that it fails to take into account the unique circumstances of women who have been raped later in their pregnancy. While the ban allows for exceptions in cases of rape, these exceptions which apply during the first few weeks of pregnancy means that women who have been raped later in their pregnancy may be forced to carry the pregnancy to term, even if it is the result of a traumatic and violent experience.
The law is deeply unfair to these women, and heavily violates their basic human rights.
Pregnancy and childbirth can be extremely difficult and dangerous, particularly for women who have been raped. These women may be at increased risk of complications, including hemorrhage, infection, and even death. Forcing them to carry the pregnancy to term against their will is not only cruel, but also potentially life-threatening.
Another concern with North Dakota’s abortion ban is the issue of establishing the offense of rape in order to qualify for the exemption. While the exemption allows for abortions in cases of rape, this requires the woman to prove that she was, in fact, raped. This is an extremely difficult task, particularly if the rape was not reported to the police or if there is no physical evidence of the assault.
This requirement can be particularly problematic for women who have been raped by someone they know or who is in a position of power over them. These women may be afraid to report the rape or may be intimidated into staying silent.
Traumatizing
Forcing women to go through the process of proving that they were raped in order to access a legal abortion is not only unfair, but also potentially traumatizing.
Only on Friday, The same Supreme court decided to temporarily block a lower court ruling that had placed significant restrictions on the abortion drug mifepristone.
The justices granted emergency requests by the justice department and the pill’s manufacturer, Danco Laboratories, to halt a preliminary injunction issued by a federal judge in Texas. The judge’s order would nevertheless restrict the availability of the medication as litigation proceeds in a challenge by anti-abortion groups.
Despite these concerns, the North Dakota abortion ban has received support from many conservative lawmakers and anti-abortion activists. They argue that it is necessary to protect the lives of the unborn, and that exceptions for rape and incest are sufficient to address the concerns of women who have been victimized.
Conservatives who have welcomed the ban on almost all abortions in North Dakota include Republican Governor Doug Burgum, who signed the bill into law. In a statement, Burgum said, “Every human life, including unborn babies, has dignity and worth, and deserves to be protected.”
Another conservative who has supported the law is Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion organization. Dannenfelser called the law a “watershed moment” in the fight against abortion rights.
However, many reproductive rights advocates argue that this ban is part of a larger effort to restrict access to abortion across the United States. They point out that similar bans have been proposed and passed in other states, and that this represents a significant threat to the rights of women to control their own bodies.
Significant Challenges
Overall, the North Dakota abortion ban poses significant challenges and raises important questions about the rights of women who have been raped and the ability of the legal system to provide justice and protection for victims of sexual assault.
While the exemption for rape is a step in the right direction, it fails to address the complex and sensitive issues involved. As this debate continues, it is important to listen to the voices of women who have been affected by these policies and to work towards a more just and equitable society for all.”
Lawyers in America need to get their act together and challenge this new wave of draconian laws which fail to adequately consider the Human Rights of women in America.
Judges of The Supreme need to be thoroughly evaluated and exposed for their pathetic decision to overrule Wade v Roe.
Governors and Supreme Court Judges need to answer questions about how they can justify a law that has no consideration for rape victims, let alone women’s right.
A challenge for The Eye Of Media is whether it has what it takes to confront The Supreme Court Of America, with the aid of lawyers to justify how such a ridiculous law can exist in this day and age.
All news corporations that think they are worth their salt like CNN, Newyork Times, CBS news, and others, need to be brave enough to question governors and the Supreme Court about the lunacy of this law. It just is not good enough to leave this to protesters, law makers must be able to account for the rules with they impose to govern the people.