MKB Mgmt. Corp. v. Burdick
Decision Date | 28 October 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 20130259.,20130259. |
Citation | MKB Mgmt. Corp. v. Burdick, 855 N.W.2d 31 (N.D. 2014) |
Parties | MKB MANAGEMENT CORP., d/b/a Red River Women's Clinic, Tammi Kromenaker, Kathryn L. Eggleston, M.D., Plaintiffs MKB Management Corp., d/b/a Red River Women's Clinic, Kathryn L. Eggleston, M.D., Appellees v. Birch BURDICK, in his official capacity as State Attorney for Cass County, Terry Dwelle, M.D., in his official capacity as the chief administrator of the North Dakota Department of Health, Defendants Terry Dwelle, M.D., in his official capacity as the chief administrator of the North Dakota Department of Health, Appellant. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Joseph A. Turman(appeared), Katrina A. Turman Lang(on brief), Fargo, N.D., Autumn Katz(argued), David Brown(appeared), Jennifer Sokoler(on brief), New York, N.Y., and Carmen Bremer(on brief), Dallas, TX, for plaintiffs and appelleesMKB Management Corp., d/b/a Red River Women's Clinic and Kathryn L. Eggleston, M.D.
Douglas A. Bahr(argued), Solicitor General, and Douglas B. Anderson(appeared), Assistant Attorney General, Bismarck, N.D., for appellant.
Christopher T. Dodson, Bismarck, ND, Thomas Brejcha, Chicago, IL, and Paul B. Linton, Northbrook, IL, for amicus curiae North Dakota Catholic Conference.
Don R. Grande, Fargo, N.D., and Mailee R. Smith, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae North Dakota Legislators.
Sarah A. Herman, Fargo, N.D., for amicus curiaeNorth Dakota Medical Association.
LaRoy Baird III, Bismarck, N.D., for amicus curiaeSteven R. Morrison, Professor of Constitutional Law, North Dakota Women's Network, and North Dakota Council on Abused Women's Services.
[¶ 1]Article VI, § 4 of the North Dakota Constitution requires the agreement of at least four members of this Court to declare a statute unconstitutional.Justice Kapsner and Surrogate Judge Maring have concluded that H.B. 1297 is unconstitutional under the North Dakota Constitution, Chief Justice VandeWalle and Justice Sandstrom have concluded that H.B. 1297 is constitutional under the stateconstitution, and Justice Crothers has concluded that the state constitutional issue need not be decided.Justices Kapsner and Crothers and Surrogate Judge Maring have concluded that H.B. 1297 is unconstitutional under the federal constitution, Chief Justice VandeWalle has concluded that H.B. 1297 is constitutional under the federal constitution, and Justice Sandstrom has concluded the federal constitutional issue is not properly before this Court.Justice Kapsner and Surrogate Judge Maring have concluded that H.B. 1297 has been declared unconstitutional under the federal constitution by a sufficient majority.Chief Justice VandeWalle and Justices Sandstrom and Crothers, however, have concluded that H.B. 1297 has not been declared unconstitutional under the federal constitution by a sufficient majority.The effect of the separate opinions in this case is that H.B. 1297 is not declared unconstitutional by a sufficient majority and that the district court judgment permanently enjoining the State from enforcing H.B. 1297 is reversed.
[¶ 2]GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., MARY MUEHLEN MARING, S.J., CAROL RONNING KAPSNER, DANIEL J. CROTHERS, and DALE V. SANDSTROM, JJ., concur.
[¶ 3] The Honorable LISA FAIR McEVERS was not a member of the Court when this case was heard and did not participate in this decision.Surrogate Judge MARY MUEHLEN MARING, sitting.
[¶ 4]Terry Dwelle, M.D., in his official capacity as chief administrator of the North Dakota Department of Health, appealed from a judgment permanently enjoining the State from enforcing 2011amendments to the North Dakota Abortion Control Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 14–02.1, regulating medication abortions (“H.B. 1297”) and from an order preliminarily enjoining the State from enforcing 2013amendments to the Abortion Control Act requiring physicians performing abortion procedures to have admitting and staffing privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of the abortion facility (“S.B. 2305”).The parties have stipulated to dismiss the claim to enjoin enforcement of S.B. 2305, and we dismiss the State's appeal from the order preliminarily enjoining enforcement of S.B. 2305.The State argues the district court erred in construing H.B. 1297 as a ban on all medication abortions and erred in determining a fundamental right to an abortion exists under the North Dakota Constitution and in applying strict scrutiny to the challenged provisions of H.B. 1297.I conclude the district court erred in determining a fundamental right to an abortion exists under the North Dakota Constitution and in applying strict scrutiny to the challenged provisions in H.B. 1297.I further conclude the court erred in construing the challenged provisions in H.B. 1297 as a ban on all medication abortions, and as construed, I conclude the challenged provisions do not constitute an undue burden on the right to an abortion under federal precedent.I would reverse the judgment permanently enjoining the State from enforcing H.B. 1297.
[¶ 5] In July 2011, MKB Management Corporation, doing business as the Red River Women's Clinic, and Kathryn L. Eggleston, a physician licensed in North Dakota and the medical director at the Clinic, sued Dwelle and Birch Burdick, in his official capacity as State's Attorney for Cass County, for a declaration that certain provisions in H.B. 1297 for medication abortions violate the North Dakota Constitution.The plaintiffs alleged the Clinic is the only abortion provider in North Dakota and serves women residing in North Dakota, as well as women who travel to the Clinic from Minnesota and South Dakota.The plaintiffs alleged the Clinic offers both surgical and medication abortions and performed a total of about 1,300 abortions in 2010.According to Eggleston, in 2007 the Clinic began offering medication abortions using two prescription drugs, mifepristone and misoprostol, and about 20 percent of the Clinic's patients choose a medication abortion and about 80 percent of the patients choose a surgical abortion.According to Tammi Kromenaker, a director at the Clinic, the Clinic performs surgical abortions through 16 weeks of a woman's pregnancy and performs medication abortions up to 9 weeks or 63 days after a woman's last menstrual period using an “off-label” or “evidence-based” protocol rather than a “final-printed-label” protocol for administering the medication.
[¶ 6] To understand the issues raised in the plaintiffs' lawsuit and this appeal, I briefly describe the differences between the “final-printed-label” protocol and the “off-label” or “evidence-based” protocol for medication abortions:
Planned Parenthood Sw. Ohio Region v. DeWine,696 F.3d 490, 494–96(6th Cir.2012)(citations and footnotes omitted).See alsoCline v. Oklahoma Coal. for Reprod. Justice,2013 OK 93, ¶¶ 9–13, 313 P.3d 253( ).
[¶ 7] The challenged provisions for medication abortions in H.B. 1297 were scheduled to take effect on August 1, 2011, and generally regulate the use of an “abortion-inducing drug” for the purpose of inducing an “abortion” in a pregnant woman.2011 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. 109, § 6.The legislation defines an “abortion-inducing drug” as “a medicine, drug, or any other substance prescribed or dispensed with the intent of causing an abortion.”Id. at § 1.The...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Iowa Bd. of Med.
...does not guarantee a right to abortion that is separate and distinct from the federal right.”); MKB Mgmt. Corp. v. Burdick, 855 N.W.2d 31, 31–32, 52, 64, 89, 91, 98 (N.D.2014) (per curiam) (upholding the constitutionality of amendments to the state abortion control act that limited medicati......