This decision has sparked major liberal outrage and even some on the right are saying it goes too far.
A proposed bill in North Dakota aimed at banning the morning-after pill has drawn considerable attention, especially among conservative lawmakers. The bill, known as HB1373, was introduced by 12 Republican state legislators and is part of a broader push to protect the sanctity of life from conception. The bill is grounded in the concept of “personhood,” asserting that life begins at the moment of fertilization. If passed, it would make abortion a criminal offense, equating it to murder or assault under North Dakota law.
One of the key provisions of HB1373 is the criminalization of the morning-after pill, commonly referred to by its brand name, Plan B. This emergency contraceptive is typically used after unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy. Under the proposed bill, women who use this form of birth control could face criminal charges, as it is considered an abortion method in the eyes of the bill’s supporters.
While this bill was introduced by Republican lawmakers, it was met with significant opposition within the Republican-majority House. Critics argued that the bill’s enforcement would be too difficult and would impose excessive penalties on women. Despite their strong stance against abortion, many lawmakers feared the bill would lead to unjust consequences for individuals simply trying to exercise their reproductive rights.
This bill aligns with the broader goals outlined in Project 2025, a conservative strategy aimed at rolling back policies that support abortion access and contraception. Project 2025 includes removing “no-cost coverage” for the morning-after pill, a provision under the Affordable Care Act that ensures women can access emergency contraception without additional costs. Stripping away this coverage would make the morning-after pill prohibitively expensive for many.
The bill, championed by Representative Lori VanWinkle, seeks to redefine the legal status of a “human being” and an “unborn child.” Supporters argue that the bill is necessary to uphold the sanctity of life from conception. However, some critics are concerned about unintended consequences for reproductive technologies, particularly in-vitro fertilization (IVF). IVF involves selecting embryos for transfer to a woman’s uterus, and critics fear that the bill’s language could lead to prosecutions related to the selection process. Though VanWinkle has assured that the bill includes exemptions for necessary medical care, IVF providers remain concerned about the bill’s vagueness.
Despite its controversial nature, the bill failed to pass in the House, with a 77-16 vote. The vote reflected deep divisions even within the Republican Party. Some Republicans criticized VanWinkle’s rhetoric, with one lawmaker calling her speech “psychotic.”
At the federal level, the debate continues over abortion and contraception access, with the North Dakota bill serving as just one example of the ongoing ideological divide. North Dakota’s legal landscape on abortion remains uncertain, with the state Supreme Court set to decide the future of former Governor Doug Burgum’s law that bans most abortions. For now, abortion remains legal in the state, but only under limited circumstances, including health and life-preserving exceptions.
Republicans, however, remain steadfast in their commitment to protect the unborn and ensure that policies respect the rights of the most vulnerable.