Opinion ID: 2746137
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Criminal Liability on Physicians

Text: [¶82] The State argues H.B. 1297 does not impose criminal liability on physicians if a patient does not attend an appointment. Section 6 of H.B. 1297 states: It is unlawful to knowingly give, sell, dispense, administer, otherwise provide, or prescribe any abortion-inducing drug to a pregnant woman for the purpose of inducing an abortion in that pregnant woman, or enabling another person to induce an abortion in a pregnant woman, unless the person who gives, sells, dispenses, administers, or otherwise provides or prescribes the abortion- inducing drug is a physician, and the provision or prescription of the abortion-inducing drug satisfies the protocol tested and authorized by the federal food and drug administration and as outlined in the label for the abortion-inducing drug. We assume that the limited interpretation of the State is correct. However, it begs the question. The district court concluded the plain language of this provision would impose criminal liability on a physician who provides abortion services under the evidence-based methods which the testimony indicates is the current standard of medical care. A physician who did not schedule three separate appointments, but who provided misoprostol to be taken buccally at home, would not satisfy the protocol of the FDA label. Such care would therefore be unlawful. The State’s interpretation could only apply to appointments scheduled under the FDA label protocol. IV. Strict Scrutiny Analysis [¶83] The district court analyzed the challenged legislation under strict scrutiny and under the undue burden test. We hold the district court properly applied both tests under our state constitution, and we discuss each separately. [¶84] The State argues the district court erred in finding a right to abortion exists under the North Dakota Constitution and in applying strict scrutiny to the analysis of whether the challenged portion of H.B. 1297 is unconstitutional. One of this Court’s highest powers is the authority to hold that a statute passed by our legislature violates the constitution of this state. Because of the gravity of such a ruling, we view statutes as presumptively constitutional, and we exercise our power with “restraint, caution, and reluctance,” and only where “constitutional infirmity” has been demonstrated. Hoff v. Berg , 1999 ND 115, ¶ 7, 595 N.W.2d 285 (citations omitted). The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute has the burden of proving its constitutional infirmity. State v. Brown , 2009 ND 150, ¶ 30, 771 N.W.2d 267. The determination whether a statute is constitutional is a question of law, which is fully reviewable on appeal. State v. Holbach , 2009 ND 37, ¶ 23, 763 N.W.2d 761.