§ 1 Overview
Total ban, exceptions for life/health and rape/incest ≤6 weeks
North Dakota prohibits abortion at all stages, with exceptions for death or serious health risk and for rape/incest through six weeks, enforced since November 21, 2025.
Full analysis
North Dakota has a near-total abortion ban. A physician cannot legally perform an abortion in the state unless it is needed to prevent the pregnant woman's death or a serious health risk to her, or unless the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest and is at six weeks' gestation or less. The pregnant woman herself cannot be prosecuted. The ban was struck down by a lower court in 2024 but reinstated by the North Dakota Supreme Court on November 21, 2025, after a split decision in which three justices found the law unconstitutional but a supermajority of four was required to invalidate it. The state's only abortion clinic moved from Fargo to Moorhead, Minnesota, in 2022; no clinics currently operate in North Dakota.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1, enacted by SB 2150 (2023), makes performing an abortion a class C felony. The ban applies at all gestational stages. Exceptions codified at § 12.1-19.1-03 permit abortion (1) to prevent death or a 'serious health risk' (defined as substantial physical impairment of a major bodily function, excluding psychological/emotional conditions), and (2) for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest at six weeks' gestation or less, measured by 'probable gestational age.' The district court declared the ban unconstitutionally vague and a violation of fundamental rights in September 2024, but the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed in Access Independent Health Services, Inc. v. Wrigley, 2025 ND ___, because Article VI, § 4 of the state constitution requires a supermajority of four of five justices to declare a statute unconstitutional, and only three so concluded.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-02, § 12.1-19.1-02, North Dakota Legislative Branch · Access Independent Health Services, Inc. v. Wrigley, 2025 ND 26, ¶ 10, Justia · N.D. Const. art. VI, § 4, Justia
Editor’s note The November 2025 North Dakota Supreme Court merits opinion reversing the district court is the controlling final judgment; re-check for any U.S. Supreme Court petition.
§ 2 At a glance
Key machine-readable determinations from the research document. Each value is derived from a sourced finding on this page — where a finding is unsettled, the value says so.
Legal classification
Total ban
Gestational limit
Total ban (0 weeks)
Limit measured from
Fertilization
Available today, as enforced
No
Mother expressly exempt
Yes
Medication abortion distinct
No
Telehealth prescribing
No
Shield state
No
Civil bounty enforcement
No
Parental involvement
Consent both parents
Judicial bypass
Yes
Medicaid coverage
Hyde only
Fetal homicide law
Yes
Personhood language in law
Yes
Rape / incest exception
Yes
Exceptions present
Life, Physical health, Rape, Incest, Ectopic miscarriage carveout
§ 3 What counts as “abortion” here
Abortion defined; ectopic/molar/spontaneous excluded
The statute defines abortion to exclude removal of a dead fetus from spontaneous abortion, treatment of ectopic pregnancy, and treatment of molar pregnancy.
Full analysis
Under North Dakota law, 'abortion' means using any instrument, medicine, drug, or other means with the intent to end a clinically diagnosable pregnancy, knowing that it will likely cause the death of the unborn child. The law does not treat as abortion the removal of a dead fetus after miscarriage, treatment of an ectopic pregnancy, or treatment of a molar pregnancy. IVF and embryos outside the womb are not addressed in the definition and fall outside this provision's reach.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-01(1) defines 'abortion' as 'the act of using, selling, or prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman, including the elimination of one or more unborn children in a multifetal pregnancy, with knowledge the termination by those means will with reasonable likelihood cause the death of the unborn child.' Subsection (1)(a)-(c) expressly excludes removal of a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion, treatment of ectopic pregnancy, and treatment of molar pregnancy. A parallel definition in the Abortion Control Act, N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-02(1), is substantially similar, though the ch. 14-02.1 definition formerly included an exception for saving the life or preserving the health of the unborn child that was modified by SB 2150.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-01(1), § 12.1-19.1-01(1), North Dakota Legislative Branch
§ 4 Current status
Total ban; life/health and rape/incest exceptions
Abortion is a felony at all gestational ages, with exceptions to prevent death or serious health risk and for rape or incest at six weeks or less, enforced since November 21, 2025.
Full analysis
Since November 21, 2025, abortion has been illegal in North Dakota at all stages of pregnancy. A doctor may perform an abortion only if, in their reasonable medical judgment, it is needed to prevent the pregnant woman's death or a 'serious health risk' — meaning a condition that would cause substantial physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including psychological or emotional conditions. There is also a narrow exception when the pregnancy results from rape or incest, but only if the probable gestational age is six weeks or less. There are no abortion clinics operating in North Dakota; the state's only clinic moved to Moorhead, Minnesota, in 2022.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-02 prohibits abortion as a class C felony. N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-03 creates three exceptions: (1) abortion to prevent death or a 'serious health risk' based on reasonable medical judgment; (2) abortion for rape or incest if probable gestational age is six weeks or less; and (3) a person assisting who acted within their regulated profession under physician direction and did not know the physician was violating the law. The ban was held constitutional by the North Dakota Supreme Court in Access Independent Health Services, Inc. v. Wrigley (November 21, 2025 merits opinion), overturning the district court's September 2024 declaration that the law was unconstitutionally vague and violated fundamental rights. The supermajority rule in N.D. Const. art. VI, § 4 produced a result where three justices found the statute unconstitutional but the two dissenting justices' opinion controlled.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-02, § 12.1-19.1-02, North Dakota Legislative Branch · N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-03, § 12.1-19.1-03, North Dakota Legislative Branch · Access Indep. Health Servs., Inc. v. Wrigley, 2025 ND ___ (Nov. 21, 2025), State Court Report / Brennan Center
Editor’s note The November 2025 merits decision is the final word from the state's highest court; no further state appeal is available. A petition for U.S. Supreme Court review is theoretically possible but unlikely to succeed.
§ 5 Law-in-effect vs. law-on-the-books
In full effect; all injunctions dissolved
The abortion ban is in full effect as of November 21, 2025, after the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the district court's injunction in a supermajority-governed split decision.
Full analysis
The North Dakota abortion ban is currently enforceable. The district court had struck it down in September 2024, but the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed that decision on November 21, 2025. Even though three of the five justices agreed the law was unconstitutionally vague, the state constitution requires at least four justices to strike down a law, so the ban stands. State's attorneys had agreed not to enforce the ban while the appeal was pending, but that agreement lapsed when the Supreme Court issued its final ruling.
Legal analysis
The procedural history: (1) Dobbs issued June 24, 2022; (2) North Dakota's 2007 trigger ban (N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31-12) was preliminarily enjoined, and the North Dakota Supreme Court in Wrigley v. Romanick, 2023 ND 50, held the state constitution protects a fundamental right to abortion to preserve life or health, affirming the preliminary injunction; (3) the legislature repealed the trigger ban and enacted N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1 via SB 2150 (2023); (4) the district court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs in September 2024, declaring the new ban unconstitutionally vague and recognizing a fundamental right to pre-viability abortion; (5) the North Dakota Supreme Court denied a stay in January 2025 (Access Indep. Health Servs., 2025 ND 26); (6) on November 21, 2025, the Supreme Court reversed on the merits — three justices found the law unconstitutional but N.D. Const. art. VI, § 4 requires four votes to invalidate; the two-justice dissenting opinion therefore controlled, upholding the ban. The state's attorneys' stipulation not to enforce during the appeal expired upon the final merits ruling. No further injunctions exist.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D. Const. art. VI, § 4, Justia · Wrigley v. Romanick, 2023 ND 50, 988 N.W.2d 231, UCLA Law Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy · Access Indep. Health Servs., Inc. v. Wrigley, 2025 ND 26 (stay denied), ¶ 2, Justia
§ 6 Exceptions
Life of the mother
Life exception: reasonable medical judgment standard
Abortion permitted when necessary, based on reasonable medical judgment, to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.
Full analysis
A physician may perform an abortion if, in their reasonable medical judgment, the procedure is necessary to prevent the pregnant woman's death. The law uses an objective standard: what a reasonably prudent physician would decide given the circumstances. There is no requirement to wait until death is imminent.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-03(1) provides that the chapter does not apply to '[a]n abortion deemed necessary based on reasonable medical judgment which was intended to prevent the death or a serious health risk to the pregnant female.' 'Reasonable medical judgment' is defined in § 12.1-19.1-01(4) as 'a medical judgment that would be made by a reasonably prudent physician who is knowledgeable about the case and the treatment possibilities with respect to the medical conditions involved.' The Supreme Court majority (which did not control the outcome) expressed concern that this objective reasonableness standard, combined with the threat of felony prosecution, would chill physicians from providing constitutionally protected care.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-03(1), § 12.1-19.1-03(1), North Dakota Legislative Branch
Physical health
Physical health: serious health risk exception
Abortion permitted for a serious health risk — a condition necessitating abortion to prevent substantial physical impairment of a major bodily function, excluding psychological or emotional conditions.
Full analysis
Beyond saving the woman's life, the law also allows abortion to prevent a 'serious health risk.' This means a physical condition that would cause substantial physical impairment of a major bodily function — for example, kidney failure, stroke risk, or loss of a major bodily function. Mental health conditions are specifically excluded and cannot justify an abortion. The physician must use their reasonable medical judgment, but the law applies an objective test — what a reasonably prudent physician would do, not just what the treating physician honestly believes.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-01(5) defines 'serious health risk' as 'a condition that, in reasonable medical judgment, complicates the medical condition of the pregnant woman so that it necessitates an abortion to prevent substantial physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including any psychological or emotional condition. The term may not be based on a claim or diagnosis that the woman will engage in conduct that will result in her death or in substantial physical impairment of a major bodily function.' The exception thus uses a two-prong objective test — the condition must both complicate the medical condition and necessitate abortion to prevent the specified level of harm — while the subjective physician assessment is filtered through the 'reasonable medical judgment' standard.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-01(5), § 12.1-19.1-01(5), North Dakota Legislative Branch
Mental health
Mental health: expressly excluded
Mental health conditions are specifically excluded from the serious health risk exception by statutory definition.
Full analysis
The law specifically states that psychological and emotional conditions do not count as a 'serious health risk.' Even a severe mental health crisis triggered or worsened by pregnancy cannot justify a legal abortion in North Dakota under this exception.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-01(5) explicitly provides that 'serious health risk' does not include 'any psychological or emotional condition.' This exclusion is unqualified, applying even where the condition would cause substantial physical impairment of a major bodily function (e.g., physical consequences of severe depression). The only possible avenue for mental-health-based abortion would be if the mental health condition gave rise to a physical condition meeting the life exception standard.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-01(5), § 12.1-19.1-01(5), North Dakota Legislative Branch
Rape
Rape: up to 6 weeks gestational age
Abortion permitted for pregnancy resulting from rape (including gross sexual imposition) if probable gestational age is six weeks or less.
Full analysis
If the pregnancy resulted from rape, sexual imposition, or sexual abuse of a ward, an abortion is allowed up to six weeks of pregnancy. The physician must make this determination based on 'reasonable medical judgment.' The law does not require the victim to report the rape to law enforcement before obtaining the abortion. However, the six-week window is extremely narrow — many people do not know they are pregnant by six weeks, making this exception difficult to use in practice.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-03(2) applies to '[a]n abortion to terminate a pregnancy that based on reasonable medical judgment resulted from gross sexual imposition, sexual imposition, sexual abuse of a ward, or incest, as those offenses are defined in chapter 12.1-20, if the probable gestational age of the unborn child is six weeks or less.' The statute does not impose a reporting requirement as part of the exception, though administrative reporting to ND HHS is required via the abortion data report form. Unlike the life/health exception, this provision does not use the 'deemed necessary' language, but still requires the determination to be based on 'reasonable medical judgment.'
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-03(2), § 12.1-19.1-03(2), North Dakota Legislative Branch
Incest
Incest: same 6-week limit as rape exception
Same six-week gestational limit for pregnancies resulting from incest, with no reporting requirement embedded in the exception.
Full analysis
The same six-week window that applies to rape also applies to incest. The physician must have a basis in reasonable medical judgment to conclude the pregnancy resulted from incest. No formal law enforcement report is required by the text of the exception, though documentation requirements for the procedure remain.
Legal analysis
Incest is expressly listed alongside rape-based offenses in N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-03(2). The same 'reasonable medical judgment' and 'six weeks or less' limits apply.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-03(2), § 12.1-19.1-03(2), North Dakota Legislative Branch
Fatal fetal anomaly
No fetal anomaly exception
North Dakota's ban provides no exception for fatal fetal anomalies, including conditions incompatible with life.
Full analysis
There is no exception in North Dakota law for pregnancies involving severe or fatal fetal anomalies. A physician cannot legally terminate a pregnancy even if the fetus has been diagnosed with a condition that is incompatible with life, unless the pregnancy also independently meets the life or serious-health-risk exception for the pregnant woman.
Legal analysis
The exceptions in N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-03 are exhaustive and do not include fetal anomaly — fatal or otherwise. Prior North Dakota law had prohibited 'genetic abnormality abortions' under N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-04.2, but that section was repealed by SB 2150 (2023) when ch. 12.1-19.1 was enacted. The current ban does not separately address this category.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-03, § 12.1-19.1-03, North Dakota Legislative Branch
Ectopic pregnancy & miscarriage care
Ectopic, molar, and miscarriage excluded from abortion
Treatment for ectopic pregnancy, molar pregnancy, and removal of a dead fetus from spontaneous abortion are expressly carved out of the statutory definition of abortion.
Full analysis
The ban does not apply to treatment for ectopic pregnancy, molar pregnancy, or removal of a deceased fetus following miscarriage. These are excluded from the definition of 'abortion' itself, so physicians may provide this care without needing to invoke an exception. However, there are no abortion clinics in North Dakota, and some hospitals may hesitate to treat pregnancy complications given the criminal penalties for violations, creating uncertainty in emergency settings.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-01(1)(a)-(c) provides that the use, sale, prescription, or means 'is not an abortion if done with the intent to: a. Remove a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion; b. Treat a woman for an ectopic pregnancy; or c. Treat a woman for a molar pregnancy.' This is a definitional carve-out rather than an affirmative defense or exception, meaning the conduct is simply not covered by the statute at all. The Abortion Control Act, N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-02(1), contains a parallel carve-out.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-01(1)(a)-(c), § 12.1-19.1-01(1)(a)-(c), North Dakota Legislative Branch
§ 7 Methods
Procedural / surgical
Procedural abortion: banned with exceptions
All procedural (surgical) abortion is banned as a class C felony, with the same life, health, and rape/incest exceptions that govern the ban generally.
Full analysis
Surgical abortion is illegal in North Dakota except when needed to save the woman's life or prevent serious health risk, or within the first six weeks for rape or incest. There are no method-specific bans (such as D&E or D&X bans) currently in force because SB 2150 repealed the prior statutes that separately banned dismemberment abortions, sex-selective abortions, genetic-abnormality abortions, and abortions after a detectable heartbeat. The general ban covers all procedural methods equally.
Legal analysis
SB 2150 expressly repealed N.D.C.C. §§ 14-02.1-04.1 (sex-selective abortion ban), 14-02.1-04.2 (genetic abnormality abortion ban), 14-02.1-05.1 (human dismemberment abortion/D&E ban), 14-02.1-05.2 (heartbeat ban), and 14-02.1-05.3 (additional restrictions). The current ch. 12.1-19.1 contains no method-specific bans; all procedural abortion is governed by the general felony prohibition.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-02, § 12.1-19.1-02, North Dakota Legislative Branch · 2023 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. 122 (SB 2150), § 11, preamble, North Dakota Legislative Branch
Medication abortion
Medication abortion: banned; same as procedural
Medication abortion (mifepristone/misoprostol) is treated identically to procedural abortion under the ban — prescribing or dispensing abortion-inducing drugs is within the felony prohibition.
Full analysis
Medication abortion is illegal in North Dakota under the same terms as surgical abortion. The definition of 'abortion' in the criminal ban includes using, selling, or prescribing any medicine or drug with the intent to terminate a pregnancy. The Abortion Control Act separately regulates 'abortion-inducing drugs' and requires compliance with FDA labeling, but the criminal ban overrides any residual regulatory framework for legal use. There is no legal way to obtain abortion medication from a provider in North Dakota.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-01(1) defines abortion to include 'using, selling, or prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy.' This plainly encompasses medication abortion. The Abortion Control Act, N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-02(3), separately defines 'abortion-inducing drug' and imposes additional regulations — including mandatory reversal information, N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-02.1(1)(e) — but those regulations are effectively moot where the underlying activity is a felony. The North Dakota Attorney General has taken the position, through the January 2026 cease-and-desist order against Prairie Abortion Fund, that facilitating mail-order abortion pills violates state consumer fraud law, underscoring that the state treats medication abortion as within the ban.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-01(1), § 12.1-19.1-01(1), North Dakota Legislative Branch · N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-02(3) (Abortion Control Act), § 14-02.1-02(3), North Dakota Legislative Branch
Editor’s note Federal FDA authority over mifepristone creates potential preemption arguments, but no North Dakota-specific litigation on this point has succeeded to date.
Self-managed abortion
Mother exempt; self-managed not separately criminalized
The pregnant woman is expressly exempt from criminal liability for performing an abortion on herself, and no separate statute targets self-managed abortion.
Full analysis
The North Dakota abortion ban says that the crime of performing an abortion applies to 'a person, other than the pregnant female upon whom the abortion was performed.' This means the pregnant woman cannot be prosecuted under the abortion ban for ending her own pregnancy, including by taking abortion pills she obtained on her own. No other North Dakota statute specifically criminalizes self-managed abortion. However, the state attorney general has pursued organizations that help people obtain pills, and the fetal homicide statute includes certain abortion-related exceptions but is not written to reach self-managed conduct.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-02 states the offense applies to 'a person, other than the pregnant female upon whom the abortion was performed.' This is a clear statutory exemption from the abortion offense. The fetal homicide statutes at N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-17.1 define 'person' to exclude 'the pregnant woman' (§ 12.1-17.1-01(2)) and contain an abortion exception (§ 12.1-17.1-07) for 'acts or omissions that cause the death or injury of an unborn child if those acts or omissions are committed during an abortion performed by or under the supervision of a licensed physician to which the pregnant woman has consented.' A self-managed abortion falls outside the scope of the physician-supervised abortion exception in the fetal homicide chapter, but the definitional exclusion of the pregnant woman from 'person' in that chapter appears to preclude prosecution of the woman under the fetal homicide statute as well. The potential for prosecution under other general criminal statutes (e.g., drug laws) is theoretically present but has not been tested.
Verified at source · medium confidence · N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-02, § 12.1-19.1-02, North Dakota Legislative Branch · N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17.1-01(2), § 12.1-17.1-01(2), North Dakota Legislative Branch
Editor’s note A failed 2025 bill (HB 1373) would have defined a human being to include the unborn in murder and assault laws, potentially exposing pregnant women to homicide charges. It was defeated 77-16.
§ 8 Actors: exposure, person by person
Who may perform an abortion
Physician-only; admitting privileges required
Only licensed physicians may perform abortions; non-physicians face a class B felony; admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles are required.
Full analysis
Only a licensed physician may perform an abortion in North Dakota. Anyone else who performs one faces a class B felony. The physician must also have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of the abortion facility, and the facility must have staff trained in CPR present. After 12 weeks of pregnancy, the procedure must be performed in a licensed hospital. Advanced practice clinicians such as nurse practitioners or physician assistants are not authorized to perform or prescribe abortions.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-04(1) provides: 'An abortion may not be performed by any individual other than a physician who is using applicable medical standards and who is licensed to practice in this state.' N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-04(6) makes it a 'class B felony for any individual, other than a physician licensed under chapter 43-17, to perform an abortion in this state.' The admitting-privileges requirement appears at § 14-02.1-04(1): 'All physicians performing abortion procedures must have admitting privileges at a hospital located within thirty miles of the abortion facility and staff privileges to replace hospital on-staff physicians at that hospital.' This provision, part of the Abortion Control Act (ch. 14-02.1), remains on the books alongside the criminal ban in ch. 12.1-19.1. After the first 12 weeks, § 14-02.1-04(2) requires the procedure in a licensed hospital.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-04(1), subsection (1), FindLaw
The pregnant woman
Pregnant woman: expressly exempt from abortion crime
The ban applies only to a person, other than the pregnant female upon whom the abortion was performed, and fetal homicide law also excludes the pregnant woman from the definition of person.
Full analysis
A pregnant woman cannot be charged under North Dakota's abortion ban for having an abortion. The law explicitly excludes 'the pregnant female upon whom the abortion was performed.' This means she cannot be prosecuted as the principal offender or as an accomplice to her own abortion. The fetal homicide statute similarly excludes the pregnant woman from its definition of 'person.' Civilly, the informed-consent statute creates a cause of action allowing a woman to sue a physician who performed an abortion without proper informed consent — but this is a right she holds, not liability she faces.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-02: 'It is a class C felony for a person, other than the pregnant female upon whom the abortion was performed, to perform an abortion.' The fetal homicide chapter, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17.1-01(2), defines 'person' to exclude 'the pregnant woman.' The civil damages provision in N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-03.2 permits '[a]ny person upon whom an abortion has been performed without informed consent' to maintain an action — it does not impose liability on the woman. The woman thus has no criminal or civil exposure under these statutes. Whether general accomplice or conspiracy statutes could reach the woman for self-managed abortion is theoretically possible but highly unlikely given the express exemption and the legislative intent it signals.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-02, § 12.1-19.1-02, North Dakota Legislative Branch · N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17.1-01(2), § 12.1-17.1-01(2), North Dakota Legislative Branch
Editor’s note HB 1373 (2025), which would have allowed women to be charged with murder for abortion, failed 77-16.
The physician
Physician: class C felony, 5 years, $10,000 fine
A physician who performs a prohibited abortion faces a class C felony — up to 5 years imprisonment, a $10,000 fine, or both — plus license discipline.
Full analysis
A physician who performs an illegal abortion faces up to five years in prison and a fine up to $10,000. Their medical license is also at risk: the state medical board can take disciplinary action against a physician who performs an abortion in violation of the law.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-02: class C felony. N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-01(4) sets the maximum for a class C felony at five years' imprisonment, a $10,000 fine, or both. N.D.C.C. § 43-17-31, as amended by SB 2150 § 10, provides that the board of medicine may impose disciplinary action against a physician for '[p]erforming an abortion in violation of chapter 12.1-19.1.' Additionally, N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-04(5) makes it a class A misdemeanor for a physician to perform an abortion without complying with the Abortion Control Act requirements (admitting privileges, ultrasound offer, etc.). The physician must also complete education under N.D.C.C. § 43-17-27.1 on abortion law within two years before performing an abortion.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-02, § 12.1-19.1-02, North Dakota Legislative Branch · N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-01(4), North Dakota Legislative Branch
Prescribers & pharmacists
Non-physician prescriber: class B felony
Prescribing or performing an abortion by a non-physician is a class B felony — up to 10 years imprisonment, a $20,000 fine, or both.
Full analysis
Only physicians may prescribe or perform abortions. Any other licensed professional — such as a nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or pharmacist — who prescribes or dispenses abortion medication for the purpose of ending a pregnancy faces a class B felony, which carries up to 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine. Pharmacists filling out-of-state prescriptions for abortion medication to patients in North Dakota would also risk criminal liability.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-04(6): 'It is a class B felony for any individual, other than a physician licensed under chapter 43-17, to perform an abortion in this state.' Although the Abortion Control Act's definition of 'abortion' at § 14-02.1-02(1) applies here, the criminal ban's definition at § 12.1-19.1-01(1) covers 'prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug' — and § 12.1-19.1-02 criminalizes 'performing an abortion,' which by definition includes prescribing. A non-physician prescriber could be charged under either provision. For pharmacists, the state's position as articulated in the Prairie Abortion Fund cease-and-desist order is that facilitating the sale of abortion medication without a prescription violates state consumer fraud law and other statutes.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-04(6), subsection (6), FindLaw
Nurses & clinic staff
Staff: protected if acting under physician direction without knowledge
Staff who assist under physician direction within their regulated profession and without knowledge the physician is violating the law are exempt from the ban.
Full analysis
Nurses, medical assistants, and other clinical staff who help with an abortion are not criminally liable if they were acting within their professional scope, under a physician's direction, and did not know the physician was breaking the law. However, if a staff member knows the abortion is illegal — for example, if they are aware the exceptions do not apply — they could face accomplice liability.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-03(3) excepts '[a]n individual assisting in performing an abortion if the individual was acting within the scope of that individual's regulated profession, was under the direction of or at the direction of a physician, and did not know the physician was performing an abortion in violation of this chapter.' This is a knowledge-based exception. Staff who know or should know the abortion violates the ban remain exposed to accomplice liability under general criminal law provisions.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-03(3), § 12.1-19.1-03(3), North Dakota Legislative Branch
Other helpers
Helpers: risk under general accomplice, consumer fraud, and aiding statutes
Non-clinical helpers — friends, family, abortion funds — face potential liability under general criminal accomplice and consumer fraud statutes; the attorney general's office has actively pursued at least one abortion fund.
Full analysis
A friend who drives someone to an illegal abortion, a parent who pays for it, or an employer who reimburses travel could potentially face criminal charges as an accomplice, depending on how prosecutors interpret the law. The North Dakota Attorney General issued a cease-and-desist order to the Prairie Abortion Fund in January 2026 under the state consumer fraud law for linking to websites selling abortion pills. This signals that the state is willing to use non-abortion statutes to target those who help people obtain abortions, even if the abortion itself occurs out of state.
Legal analysis
North Dakota has no standalone 'aiding and abetting abortion' statute. However, under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-03-01, a person is criminally liable as an accomplice if they solicit, aid, agree, or attempt to aid another in planning or committing an offense. General accomplice liability could theoretically extend to anyone who knowingly assists in performing a prohibited abortion. In practice, the most visible enforcement action has been the Attorney General's use of the Consumer Fraud Law (N.D.C.C. ch. 51-15) against Prairie Abortion Fund for facilitating access to abortion pills. No criminal prosecutions of non-clinical helpers have been publicly reported.
Verified at source · medium confidence · N.D.C.C. § 12.1-03-01 (accomplice liability), North Dakota Legislative Branch · Cease & Desist Order, Prairie Abortion Fund (Jan. 16, 2026), North Dakota Attorney General
Editor’s note No reported prosecutions of non-clinical helpers under accomplice theory as of this writing; the legal risk is largely theoretical but not zero.
§ 9 Aiding & assisting
Helping someone travel
No travel ban; travel assistance not criminalized
North Dakota has no statute criminalizing travel out of state for abortion or assisting someone with such travel; efforts to enact abortion trafficking laws have not succeeded.
Full analysis
There is no North Dakota law that makes it a crime to help someone travel out of state for an abortion, and no 'abortion trafficking' statute. A person may lawfully travel from North Dakota to Minnesota or elsewhere for an abortion, and others may assist with transportation, lodging, or funds for that travel without facing prosecution under a travel-specific statute. General accomplice liability to an in-state offense would not logically attach to lawful out-of-state conduct.
Legal analysis
North Dakota has not enacted an 'abortion trafficking' law like those in Idaho or Tennessee. No statute criminalizes assisting with or facilitating travel for out-of-state abortion. The failed 2025 legislative session saw no successful travel-ban bills. The Constitution's right to travel and the dormant Commerce Clause would present substantial federal constitutional obstacles to any such law.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1 (no travel provision), ch. 12.1-19.1 entire, North Dakota Legislative Branch
Paying for an abortion
Funding assistance: consumer fraud enforcement against abortion fund
No direct abortion-funding crime, but the AG has used consumer fraud law against Prairie Abortion Fund for facilitating pill access; direct financial assistance for out-of-state travel has not been targeted in the same manner.
Full analysis
There is no North Dakota law that directly criminalizes paying for someone's abortion or abortion-related travel. However, the Attorney General issued a cease-and-desist order against Prairie Abortion Fund in January 2026 under the consumer fraud law for facilitating the sale of abortion pills, which signals potential legal risk for organizations that help fund or facilitate abortion access.
Legal analysis
No statute directly criminalizes paying for an abortion or aiding in funding one. The AG's action against Prairie Abortion Fund used the Consumer Fraud Law (N.D.C.C. ch. 51-15), focusing on the fund's promotion of websites selling abortion pills without prescriptions, not on the financial assistance itself. The action illustrates the state's willingness to use ancillary laws against abortion-access facilitators.
Verified at source · medium confidence · Cease & Desist Order, Prairie Abortion Fund (Jan. 16, 2026), North Dakota Attorney General
Mailing abortion medication
Mailing pills: targeted via consumer fraud; no specific mailing ban
North Dakota has no standalone mail-ban statute, but the AG has used consumer fraud law against entities facilitating mail-order abortion pills, and the criminal ban covers selling or prescribing abortion-inducing drugs.
Full analysis
There is no specific North Dakota law that says it is illegal to mail abortion pills. But the Attorney General has argued that facilitating mail-order abortion pills is illegal under the state's consumer fraud law. Because the abortion ban criminalizes selling or prescribing abortion-inducing drugs, shipping pills into North Dakota could be prosecuted under the ban, and anyone who helps make that happen could face accomplice liability or consumer fraud claims.
Legal analysis
The criminal ban covers 'using, selling, or prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug' with intent to terminate a pregnancy (N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-01(1)). This encompasses sending medication into the state. The AG's January 2026 cease-and-desist order articulated the theory that promoting mail-order abortion pills violates the Consumer Fraud Law by 'facilitating the unlawful sale of abortion pills without a required prescription' and 'promoting and facilitating the unlawful introduction of new drugs into North Dakota commerce.' Federal preemption arguments (FDA approval of mifepristone, the Comstock Act debate) create complexity but have not been adjudicated in a North Dakota-specific case.
Conflicting authority Federal FDA approval and regulation of mifepristone potentially preempts state restrictions on mailing, but this has not been definitively adjudicated for North Dakota.
Verify before publication · medium confidence · Cease & Desist Order, Prairie Abortion Fund (Jan. 16, 2026), North Dakota Attorney General
Editor’s note The federal landscape around Comstock Act enforcement and FDA preemption is in flux; re-check for any North Dakota-specific federal court rulings.
Providing information
Information provision: First Amendment limits; AG enforcement against referrals
No statute directly criminalizes providing information about abortion, but the AG's consumer fraud action against Prairie Abortion Fund for linking to pill websites suggests the state views referrals as within its enforcement reach.
Full analysis
Giving someone information about how to get an abortion — including website addresses or clinic referrals — is not directly criminalized by any North Dakota statute. However, the Attorney General's cease-and-desist order against Prairie Abortion Fund was based partly on the fund's website linking to pill sellers, suggesting the state considers such referrals as facilitating illegal activity. First Amendment protections likely limit the state's ability to criminalize pure information sharing, but the line between protected speech and illegal facilitation remains untested in North Dakota courts.
Legal analysis
No North Dakota statute directly criminalizes providing information or referrals for abortion. The AG's consumer fraud theory treated linking to pill-sale websites as 'promoting and facilitating the unlawful sale' rather than pure speech. First Amendment protections for truthful information about lawful out-of-state services are strong, but the boundary between protected speech and aiding-and-abetting unlawful conduct is fact-specific and has not been litigated in North Dakota.
No law on this point · medium confidence
Private civil enforcement (bounty suits)
No SB8-style civil bounty law
North Dakota has not enacted a private civil enforcement mechanism of the Texas SB8 type; no statute authorizes private individuals to sue abortion providers or helpers for damages.
Full analysis
North Dakota does not have a law like Texas's SB8 that lets private citizens sue anyone who performs an abortion or helps someone get one. There is no civil bounty mechanism on the books.
Legal analysis
No North Dakota statute creates a private civil cause of action against abortion providers or those who aid or abet abortion. The only civil remedy specific to abortion is the woman's own cause of action against a physician who performed an abortion without informed consent (N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-03.2), which provides for $10,000 in punitive damages and treble actual damages.
No law on this point · high confidence
§ 10 Procedural requirements
Waiting period
24-hour waiting period, in-person counseling
A woman must receive mandatory information from the physician or the physician's agent at least 24 hours before an abortion, and the informed consent certification must be in writing.
Full analysis
Under the Abortion Control Act, a woman must receive state-mandated information at least 24 hours before the abortion procedure. The physician or the physician's agent must inform her of the procedure's risks, the gestational age of the fetus, alternatives to abortion, and the father's support obligations. She must certify in writing that she received this information. The physician cannot receive payment before the 24-hour period expires. In practice, this requirement is moot because abortion is banned except for the narrow exceptions, where the medical emergency provision may bypass some of these requirements.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-02(9) defines 'informed consent' with mandatory disclosures at least 24 hours before the abortion: the physician's name, the statement that 'the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being,' medical risks, probable gestational age, and risks of carrying to term. Subsection (b) adds information about medical assistance, printed materials, the father's liability for support, and that consent can be withdrawn at any time. Subsection (e) prohibits payment before the 24-hour period. N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-03(1) requires written certification. The medical emergency exception at § 14-02.1-03(1) bypasses these requirements when necessary to prevent death or serious health risk.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-02(9)(a), § 14-02.1-02(9)(a)(2), North Dakota Legislative Branch
Editor’s note These Abortion Control Act provisions remain on the books but are largely dormant while the ban is in effect; they become operative only in the limited circumstances where abortion is lawful.
Mandatory counseling
State-scripted counseling; medically contested statements
The state requires specific scripted oral and printed disclosures, including that the abortion terminates a unique living human being, that abortion reversal may be possible, and that abortion is linked to increased breast cancer risk.
Full analysis
North Dakota requires doctors to give patients a specific set of statements before an abortion. The doctor must say that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being. Printed materials from the health department must describe fetal development with color photographs, include the medically disputed claim that abortion may increase breast cancer risk, and state that it may be possible to reverse a medication abortion — a claim not supported by major medical organizations. The materials must also state that the state of North Dakota strongly urges you to contact alternatives-to-abortion agencies.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-02.1(1)(d) requires printed materials describing abortion methods and 'the possible increased risk of breast cancer' — a claim disputed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the National Cancer Institute. N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-02.1(1)(e) requires materials stating 'it may be possible to reverse the effects of an abortion-inducing drug,' referring to so-called 'abortion pill reversal,' a protocol not supported by ACOG and deemed unscientific. The informed-consent statute, § 14-02.1-02(9)(b)(5), added by SB 2150, requires informing the woman that reversal is possible. The required statement that the abortion 'will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being' (§ 14-02.1-02(9)(a)(2)) is a state-mandated ideological assertion.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-02(9)(a)(2), § 14-02.1-02(9)(a)(2), North Dakota Legislative Branch · N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-02.1(1)(d)-(e), § 14-02.1-02.1(1)(d)-(e), North Dakota Legislative Branch
Editor’s note Several of these mandated statements are not supported by mainstream medical consensus.
Ultrasound requirement
Ultrasound offered and opportunity to view required
The abortion facility must offer the woman the opportunity to receive and view an active ultrasound at least 24 hours before the abortion; she must sign documenting her decision.
Full analysis
Before an abortion, the facility must offer the woman a chance to see and receive an active ultrasound of the fetus at least 24 hours in advance. The ultrasound must show dimensions, external features, internal organs, and the heartbeat if visible. She must sign a form documenting whether she accepted or declined the offer. She is not required to look at the image, but the offer must be made and documented.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-04(3) provides: 'An abortion facility may not perform an abortion on a woman without first offering the woman an opportunity to receive and view at the abortion facility or another facility an active ultrasound of her unborn child. The offer and opportunity to receive and view an ultrasound must occur at least twenty-four hours before the abortion is scheduled to be performed.' The ultrasound must 'contain the dimensions of the unborn child, and accurately portray the presence of external members and internal organs, including the heartbeat, if present or viewable.' The woman is not required to view the image; the facility must only document her response. This is an 'offer' requirement, not a 'mandatory display' requirement. Auscultation of fetal heart tone must also be offered.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-04(3), subsection (3), FindLaw
Editor’s note These requirements are dormant when no legal abortion can be performed.
In-person visits
At least one in-person visit required
The mandatory 24-hour waiting period, informed consent, and ultrasound offer collectively require at least one in-person visit before the procedure.
Full analysis
The combined effect of the 24-hour waiting period, mandatory in-person informed consent (including ultrasound offer), and written certification requirements means that a woman must make at least one in-person visit to the abortion facility at least 24 hours before the procedure. The physician must receive the written consent certification before performing the abortion. Because no clinics operate in North Dakota, this requirement is moot for most patients, who must travel out of state.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-02(9)(a) requires the physician or agent to tell the woman the mandated information at least 24 hours before the abortion; § 14-02.1-02(9)(c)-(d) requires written certification before the abortion and the physician's receipt of that certification. The ultrasound offer under § 14-02.1-04(3) must also occur at least 24 hours before. While the statute permits the physician's 'agent' to deliver some information, the practical effect is that at least one in-person visit precedes the procedure itself.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. §§ 14-02.1-02(9), 14-02.1-04(3), North Dakota Legislative Branch
§ 11 Minors
Parental involvement
Parental consent: both parents required
An unemancipated minor under 18 must obtain written consent from both parents (or the surviving/custodial parent or guardian) before an abortion, with a judicial bypass available.
Full analysis
In North Dakota, a person under 18 who is not married must get written consent from both parents — or the surviving parent, custodial parent, or legal guardian — before having an abortion. If the minor cannot or will not involve their parents, they can ask a juvenile court judge for permission instead (judicial bypass). There is an exception for medical emergencies.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-03.1(1) prohibits knowingly performing an abortion on a minor under 18 unless the attending physician has secured written consent from 'the minor woman and both parents, if living, or the surviving parent if one parent is deceased, or the custodial parent if the parents are separated or divorced, or the legal guardian or guardians if the minor is subject to guardianship.' Marriage of the minor (§ 14-02.1-03.1(1)(b)) and medical emergency (§ 14-02.1-03.1(12)) provide exceptions. The pre-viability notification provision at § 14-02.1-03(1) requires 24-hour in-person notification or 48-hour certified mail notification to each parent.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-03.1(1)(a), § 14-02.1-03.1(1)(a), North Dakota Legislative Branch
Editor’s note These provisions are dormant while the ban prevents abortion except under narrow exceptions.
Judicial bypass
Judicial bypass: maturity and best interests standard
A minor may petition the juvenile court for authorization without parental consent; the court must hear the case within 48 hours and rule on maturity and best interests, with expedited Supreme Court appeal available.
Full analysis
A minor who does not want to involve her parents can go to juvenile court and ask a judge for permission instead. The court must hear her case within 48 hours (excluding weekends). The judge decides if she is mature and well-informed enough to make the decision on her own. If she is not, the judge decides if notifying parents is in her best interests. If it would not be, the judge can authorize the abortion. The minor can appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court, which must hear the case within four days and decide within 24 hours. The proceedings are confidential.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-03.1(2) entitles any pregnant minor or next friend to apply to the juvenile court. The judge or referee must find by clear and convincing evidence: (a) whether the minor is sufficiently mature and well-informed; (b) if not, whether notification to parents is in the minor's best interests; (c) if not, whether abortion is in the minor's best interests. Hearing must occur within 48 hours of receipt (excluding weekends). Appeals go directly to the Supreme Court (§ 14-02.1-03.1(6)), which must hear the case within 4 days (§ 14-02.1-03.1(8)) and issue a decision within 24 hours (§ 14-02.1-03.1(10)). The record is sealed (§ 14-02.1-03.1(4)).
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-03.1(2), § 14-02.1-03.1(2), North Dakota Legislative Branch
Editor’s note Dormant while the ban prevents abortion except under narrow exceptions.
§ 12 Paternal & spousal rights
Consent & notice laws on the books
Spousal consent on the books for post-viability abortions
A provision requiring written spousal consent for post-viability abortions remains in the Abortion Control Act, though likely unenforceable under federal precedent.
Full analysis
The North Dakota Abortion Control Act contains a provision stating that after viability, an abortion may not be performed without the written consent of the woman's husband, unless they are voluntarily separated. This provision is almost certainly unconstitutional under longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent, but it has not been formally repealed.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-03(2), as amended by SB 2150, provides: 'Subsequent to the period of pregnancy when the unborn child may reasonably be expected to have reached viability, an abortion, other than an abortion necessary to preserve her life or to prevent a serious health risk, may not be performed upon any woman in the absence of: a. The written consent of her husband unless her husband is voluntarily separated from her...' This provision was originally enacted before Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), which held spousal consent requirements unconstitutional, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), which reaffirmed that spousal notice requirements are an undue burden. SB 2150 amended this section but did not repeal the spousal consent language.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-03(2)(a), § 14-02.1-03(2)(a), North Dakota Legislative Branch
Editor’s note Likely unenforceable under binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent, though Dobbs has not expressly reopened the specific spousal-consent question.
Enforceability after Danforth and Dobbs
Spousal consent unenforceable under Danforth and Casey
The spousal consent provision is almost certainly unconstitutional under Planned Parenthood v. Danforth (1976) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), and its continued presence in the code is likely a legislative oversight.
Full analysis
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled twice that requiring a husband's consent for an abortion is unconstitutional: in Planned Parenthood v. Danforth in 1976 and again in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. Because these rulings have not been overturned — even by Dobbs, which addressed the viability framework but not the spousal-consent rule specifically — the North Dakota spousal consent provision is almost certainly unenforceable. However, the statute has not been formally repealed, and no North Dakota court has addressed it since Dobbs.
Legal analysis
Danforth, 428 U.S. at 69, held that a spousal consent requirement 'is unconstitutional, since the State cannot delegate to a spouse a veto power which the state itself is absolutely and totally prohibited from exercising during the first trimester of pregnancy.' Casey, 505 U.S. at 887-98, reaffirmed this principle in striking down a spousal notification requirement as an undue burden. Dobbs did not overrule Danforth's specific holding on spousal consent — it overturned Roe and Casey's central holding on the constitutional right to abortion. The spousal-consent provision also conflicts with the current total-ban framework in ch. 12.1-19.1, which supersedes viability-based restrictions.
Semi-verified · high confidence · Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 69 (1976), slip op. at 69, Justia / U.S. Supreme Court
Editor’s note Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication.
Other paternal rights
Father's support obligation disclosed; no abortion veto
The informed-consent statute requires telling the woman that the father is liable for child support; the father has no right to veto an abortion.
Full analysis
North Dakota law requires that a woman be told before an abortion that the father is legally responsible for child support if she carries the pregnancy to term. The father has no legal right to prevent an abortion or to be notified before one occurs. The state's wrongful-death statute has been interpreted to allow a claim for a viable fetus, which could include a father as a potential plaintiff, but this has not been applied in the abortion context.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-02(9)(b)(3) requires disclosure '[t]hat the father is liable to assist in the support of her child, even in instances in which the father has offered to pay for the abortion.' The father has no notice, consent, or veto right under North Dakota law (the spousal consent provision applies only to husbands, and then only post-viability, and is unenforceable). The wrongful-death statute, N.D.C.C. § 32-21-01, as interpreted by Hopkins v. McBane, 359 N.W.2d 862 (N.D. 1984), authorizes a claim for the death of a viable unborn child, and the father could potentially be a plaintiff. However, the abortion ban itself at § 12.1-19.1-02 exempts the mother, and the fetal homicide statute at § 12.1-17.1-07 excepts abortion, so wrongful-death claims against either the mother or a physician performing a lawful abortion appear foreclosed.
Verified at source · medium confidence · N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-02(9)(b)(3), § 14-02.1-02(9)(b)(3), North Dakota Legislative Branch
Editor’s note Wrongful-death intersection with abortion has not been litigated in North Dakota.
§ 13 Fetal personhood
Fetal homicide law
Fetal homicide from conception; abortion exception
North Dakota criminalizes homicide of an unborn child at any stage of development, but the statute defines person to exclude the pregnant woman and contains an explicit exception for consented-to physician-performed abortion.
Full analysis
North Dakota has a fetal homicide law that makes it a crime to kill an unborn child — from the moment of conception — in circumstances that would be murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide if the victim were born. However, the law explicitly excludes the pregnant woman from the definition of person and contains a specific exception for abortion performed by or under the supervision of a licensed physician with the woman's consent. So a third party who kills a fetus (for example, by assaulting a pregnant woman) can be charged, but the law does not reach the pregnant woman or a physician performing a legal abortion.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-17.1 creates offenses including murder of an unborn child (class AA or A felony, § 12.1-17.1-02), manslaughter (class B, § 12.1-17.1-03), negligent homicide (class C, § 12.1-17.1-04), and aggravated assault/assault (§§ 12.1-17.1-05, -06). 'Unborn child' is defined as 'the conceived but not yet born offspring of a human being, which, but for the action of the actor would beyond a reasonable doubt have subsequently been born alive' (§ 12.1-17.1-01(3)). The statute covers from conception. The exception at § 12.1-17.1-07 provides: 'This chapter does not apply to acts or omissions that cause the death or injury of an unborn child if those acts or omissions are committed during an abortion performed by or under the supervision of a licensed physician to which the pregnant woman has consented, nor does it apply to acts or omissions that are committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice during diagnostic or therapeutic treatment.' Critically, § 12.1-17.1-01(2) defines 'person' (as used in the chapter) to exclude 'the pregnant woman.'
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-17.1-01(2), 12.1-17.1-07, §§ 12.1-17.1-01(2), 12.1-17.1-07, North Dakota Legislative Branch
Wrongful death
Wrongful death for viable unborn child
The North Dakota Supreme Court has held that a wrongful-death action may be brought for a viable unborn child under N.D.C.C. § 32-21-01.
Full analysis
If a viable fetus dies because of someone else's negligence or wrongful act, the parents can bring a wrongful-death lawsuit. The North Dakota Supreme Court decided this in 1984 in the case of Hopkins v. McBane, holding that a viable unborn child qualifies as a person for purposes of the state's wrongful-death statute. The ruling applies from viability, not conception.
Legal analysis
In Hopkins v. McBane, 359 N.W.2d 862 (N.D. 1984), the North Dakota Supreme Court held that N.D.C.C. § 32-21-01 authorizes a wrongful-death action on behalf of a viable unborn child, construing the term person to include a viable fetus. The court stated: 'we hold that Section 32-21-01, N.D.C.C., authorizes a wrongful-death action against one whose tortious conduct causes the death of a viable unborn child.' The court relied in part on N.D.C.C. § 14-10-15 (now renumbered), which provides that a child conceived but not born 'is to be deemed an existing person so far as may be necessary for its interests in the event of its subsequent birth.' The holding is limited to viability.
Verified at source · high confidence · Hopkins v. McBane, 359 N.W.2d 862 (N.D. 1984), Justia
Personhood definitions
Human being includes unborn from fertilization
The Abortion Control Act defines human being to include the unborn human being during the entire embryonic and fetal ages from fertilization to full gestation.
Full analysis
North Dakota law contains a statutory definition that says a human being includes an unborn child from the moment of fertilization through the entire pregnancy. This definition is in the Abortion Control Act, the portion of the code that regulates how abortions may be performed when they are not otherwise prohibited. It does not, by its own terms, apply to the state's homicide statutes, though a 2025 bill that would have extended it to homicide and assault laws was defeated.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-02(7) defines human being as an individual living member of the species of homo sapiens, including the unborn human being during the entire embryonic and fetal ages from fertilization to full gestation. This definition applies to the Abortion Control Act (ch. 14-02.1). It does not amend the criminal code's definitions of person or human being for homicide purposes. The 2025 personhood bill, HB 1373, which would have extended this definition to homicide, assault, and wrongful-death statutes, was defeated 77-16. The Abortion Control Act also defines unborn child as the offspring of human beings from conception until birth (§ 14-02.1-02(15)).
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-02(7), § 14-02.1-02(7), North Dakota Legislative Branch
Internal contradictions
North Dakota's law contains significant internal contradictions regarding fetal personhood. The Abortion Control Act defines human being to include the unborn from fertilization to full gestation (N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-02(7)), and its stated purpose is to protect every human life whether unborn or aged, healthy or sick (§ 14-02.1-01). Yet the criminal abortion ban itself (ch. 12.1-19.1), enacted by the same legislature, expressly exempts the pregnant woman from criminal liability and permits abortion — the deliberate termination of that same human being — to prevent death or serious health risk, and for rape or incest before six weeks. The fetal homicide chapter (ch. 12.1-17.1) treats the killing of an unborn child as potentially murder in the first degree (class AA felony), but simultaneously excludes the pregnant woman from the definition of person and exempts physician-performed abortion with consent. The wrongful-death statute has been interpreted to permit a civil action for a viable fetus, yet the same legal system prohibits abortion except in narrow circumstances — creating a paradox in which the fetus is a person for some purposes but not for the purpose of the abortion ban's exceptions. The 2025 legislature considered and rejected HB 1373, which would have resolved some of these contradictions by making the woman chargeable with murder — the bill's defeat preserves the existing tension between personhood rhetoric and the mother-exemption reality.
§ 14 Telehealth & interstate questions
Telehealth prescribing
Telehealth prescribing effectively barred
Abortion medication cannot be prescribed via telehealth to a patient in North Dakota because the underlying act of prescribing with intent to terminate a pregnancy is a felony.
Full analysis
Because prescribing abortion medication to end a pregnancy is itself a felony in North Dakota, telehealth prescribing is effectively prohibited. Even a physician licensed in North Dakota cannot prescribe mifepristone or misoprostol via a video or phone visit to a patient in the state unless one of the narrow exceptions applies. Out-of-state physicians who prescribe abortion medication via telehealth to a North Dakota resident face potential criminal exposure under North Dakota's criminal statutes, though enforcement across state lines is practically complex.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-01(1) defines abortion to include 'prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug' with the requisite intent. N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-02 makes performing an abortion a class C felony. Telehealth prescribing falls within this prohibition. There is no specific telehealth-abortion statute; the general ban suffices. Shield-law states (e.g., Massachusetts, New York, California) have enacted protections for their providers who prescribe across state lines, but North Dakota has not recognized those protections and could theoretically attempt to prosecute out-of-state prescribers, though extraterritorial enforcement is legally uncertain.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-01(1), § 12.1-19.1-01(1), North Dakota Legislative Branch
Editor’s note The interaction between North Dakota's ban and shield-law states' protections for their own providers is legally unsettled.
Out-of-state travel
Out-of-state travel: lawful; no extraterritorial statute
North Dakota residents may lawfully travel out of state for abortion care; no statute attempts to reach conduct occurring wholly outside North Dakota.
Full analysis
It is legal to travel from North Dakota to another state — most commonly Minnesota — to obtain an abortion. North Dakota has no law that tries to punish its residents for getting an abortion in another state where it is legal. The state's only abortion clinic, Red River Women's Clinic, moved from Fargo to Moorhead, Minnesota, in 2022, and continues to serve North Dakota residents there.
Legal analysis
No North Dakota statute purports to criminalize out-of-state travel for abortion or to apply North Dakota's abortion ban to conduct occurring in another jurisdiction. General principles of state jurisdiction limit extraterritorial application of criminal laws. Red River Women's Clinic relocated to Moorhead, Minnesota, in August 2022 and continues to operate there, providing abortion care to North Dakota residents who travel across the border.
Semi-verified · high confidence · Red River Women's Clinic (public information), Red River Women's Clinic
Editor’s note Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication.
Shield & hostile laws
No shield law; hostile enforcement posture
North Dakota has no shield law protecting abortion providers or patients from other states' investigations; the AG has taken an active enforcement posture against in-state entities facilitating abortion access.
Full analysis
North Dakota is not a shield state — it has no law protecting its providers, residents, or visitors from other states' abortion-related investigations, subpoenas, or extradition requests. Instead, the state has taken a hostile posture: the Attorney General has used consumer fraud law against an in-state abortion fund for facilitating pill access. Out-of-state shield laws (in states like Minnesota) may protect providers there who serve North Dakota residents, but North Dakota itself offers no such protections.
Legal analysis
North Dakota has enacted no shield law comparable to those in states like Minnesota, New York, or California. The Attorney General's cease-and-desist order against Prairie Abortion Fund (January 2026), and the state's active defense of its abortion ban through litigation, reflect a hostile enforcement posture. Minnesota, where Red River Women's Clinic now operates, has enacted shield protections, but those protect providers in Minnesota — they do not constrain North Dakota's enforcement of its own laws.
No law on this point · high confidence
§ 15 Funding & insurance
Medicaid
Medicaid: Hyde Amendment only (life, rape, incest)
North Dakota Medicaid covers abortion only when necessary to save the woman's life or when the pregnancy results from rape or incest, consistent with the federal Hyde Amendment.
Full analysis
North Dakota's Medicaid program covers abortion only in three situations: when the woman's life is endangered by carrying the pregnancy to term, when the pregnancy is the result of rape, or when it is the result of incest. It does not cover abortion for any other reason, even when the woman's health is at serious risk.
Legal analysis
The North Dakota Medicaid Abortion Policy (updated July 2025) covers: (1) abortion to save the life of the woman, requiring a signed physician statement; (2) abortion resulting from rape or incest, requiring either a law enforcement report or a signed patient statement with physician verification. N.D.C.C. § 14-02.3-01(3) further prohibits use of any state funds to pay for abortion 'unless the abortion is necessary to prevent the death of the woman' — this is narrower than the Medicaid policy for rape/incest, but the Medicaid policy's federal matching funds may explain the discrepancy.
Conflicting authority N.D.C.C. § 14-02.3-01(3) restricts state funds to life-of-the-mother only, but the Medicaid policy manual covers rape and incest as well, likely reflecting federal Hyde Amendment requirements for federal matching funds.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 14-02.3-01(3), § 14-02.3-01(3), Justia · North Dakota Medicaid Billing and Policy Manual – Abortion (July 2025), North Dakota Health and Human Services
Private insurance
Private insurance: abortion coverage only by optional rider
Health insurance policies issued in North Dakota may not cover abortion except through an optional rider with an additional premium; an exception exists for life-saving abortions.
Full analysis
Private health insurance plans sold in North Dakota cannot cover abortion as part of their standard benefits package. A person who wants abortion coverage must purchase it as a separate add-on (rider) and pay extra for it. The only exception is when the abortion is needed to save the woman's life — that is covered without a rider.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 14-02.3-03 provides: 'No health insurance contracts, plans, or policies delivered or issued for delivery in this state may provide coverage for abortions, including the elimination of one or more unborn children in a multifetal pregnancy, except by an optional rider for which there must be paid an additional premium. Provided, however, that this section does not apply to the performance of an abortion necessary to prevent the death of the woman.'
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 14-02.3-03, § 14-02.3-03, Justia
ACA exchange plans
Exchange plans subject to same rider requirement
ACA marketplace plans in North Dakota are subject to the same abortion-coverage restriction: coverage only through an optional rider with additional premium.
Full analysis
Health insurance plans sold through the federal marketplace (ACA plans) in North Dakota also cannot include abortion coverage as a standard benefit. The same rider requirement applies.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 14-02.3-03 applies to all health insurance contracts delivered or issued for delivery in this state, which includes ACA marketplace plans. The ACA itself permits states to opt out of requiring abortion coverage in exchange plans, and North Dakota's restriction aligns with that option.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 14-02.3-03, § 14-02.3-03, Justia
State funding of providers
State defunds abortion providers and referral
State and local funds may not be used by any entity that performs, refers, or encourages abortion; state policy gives preference to childbirth over abortion.
Full analysis
North Dakota law prohibits the use of public funds by any organization that performs, refers for, or encourages abortion. This includes family planning funds. The state's declared policy is that childbirth is preferred over abortion. No state funds may be used to promote abortion.
Legal analysis
N.D.C.C. § 14-02.3-01(1) declares a state policy that normal childbirth is to be given preference, encouragement, and support by law and by state action. N.D.C.C. § 14-02.3-01(2) prohibits state agencies from producing or funding materials or programs that do not give preference to childbirth. N.D.C.C. § 14-02.3-02 prohibits use of public family planning funds by any entity which performs, refers, or encourages abortion. N.D.C.C. § 14-02.3-04 prohibits abortions in government hospitals except to prevent the woman's death.
Verified at source · high confidence · N.D.C.C. § 14-02.3-02, § 14-02.3-02, Justia
§ 16 Penalties, actor by actor
| Actor | Offense | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Physician performing prohibited abortion Verified at source |
Performing abortion in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-19.1-02 N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-19.1-02, 12.1-32-01(4), 43-17-31, North Dakota Legislative Branch |
Class C felony: up to 5 years imprisonment, $10,000 fine, or both; plus medical board discipline |
| Non-physician performing abortion Verified at source |
Performing abortion without being a licensed physician N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-04(6), subsection (6), FindLaw |
Class B felony: up to 10 years imprisonment, $20,000 fine, or both |
| Physician violating Abortion Control Act procedures Verified at source |
Performing abortion without complying with admitting privileges, ultrasound offer, or other ch. 14-02.1 requirements N.D.C.C. § 14-02.1-04(5), subsection (5), FindLaw |
Class A misdemeanor: up to 360 days imprisonment, $3,000 fine, or both |
| Person violating public funding or insurance restrictions Verified at source |
Violating ch. 14-02.3 (public funds for abortion, insurance restrictions, government hospital ban) N.D.C.C. § 14-02.3-05, § 14-02.3-05, Justia |
Class B misdemeanor: up to 30 days imprisonment, $1,500 fine, or both |
| Pregnant woman Verified at source |
None (expressly exempt from abortion crime; excluded from fetal homicide person definition) N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-19.1-02, 12.1-17.1-01(2), North Dakota Legislative Branch |
No criminal or civil penalty under abortion ban or fetal homicide law |
§ 17 Since Dobbs: what changed
- June 24, 2022
U.S. Supreme Court issues Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade. North Dakota's 2007 trigger ban (N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31-12) is designed to take effect 30 days later.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 597 U.S. 215 (2022), U.S. Supreme Court
- August 3, 2022
Red River Women's Clinic, North Dakota's sole abortion provider, relocates from Fargo to Moorhead, Minnesota, anticipating the trigger ban's enforcement.
Red River Women's Clinic (public information), Red River Women's Clinic
- March 16, 2023
North Dakota Supreme Court in Wrigley v. Romanick affirms preliminary injunction against 2007 trigger ban, holding the state constitution protects a fundamental right to abortion to preserve life or health.
Wrigley v. Romanick, 2023 ND 50, 988 N.W.2d 231, UCLA Law / Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy
- April 24, 2023
Governor Doug Burgum signs SB 2150, enacting N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1: a new near-total abortion ban with exceptions for life/health and rape/incest (≤6 weeks), repealing the 2007 trigger ban and six other abortion-restriction statutes.
2023 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. 122 (SB 2150), North Dakota Legislative Branch
- September 12, 2024
Burleigh County District Court Judge Bruce Romanick grants summary judgment for plaintiffs, declaring N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1 unconstitutionally vague and recognizing a fundamental right to pre-viability abortion under the state constitution.
Access Indep. Health Servs., Inc. v. Wrigley, No. 08-2022-CV-01608 (Burleigh Cnty. Dist. Ct. Sept. 12, 2024), North Dakota Monitor / Courthouse News
- January 24, 2025
North Dakota Supreme Court denies State's motion to stay the district court's injunction pending appeal, finding the state unlikely to succeed on the merits (Access Indep. Health Servs., 2025 ND 26).
Access Indep. Health Servs., Inc. v. Wrigley, 2025 ND 26, ¶¶ 7, 16, Justia
- February 12, 2025
Four abortion-related bills fail in the North Dakota House: personhood bill HB 1373 (defeated 77-16), 15-week legalization HB 1488 (87-6), IVF protection (59-34), and contraception protection (66-27).
North Dakota Monitor, Feb. 12, 2025, North Dakota Monitor
- November 21, 2025
North Dakota Supreme Court issues final merits decision reversing the district court and upholding the abortion ban. Three justices find the law unconstitutional, but the supermajority rule (requiring four votes) means the two-justice dissent controls. The ban goes into effect.
State Court Report, Dec. 8, 2025, State Court Report / Brennan Center
- January 16, 2026
Attorney General Drew Wrigley issues a cease-and-desist order against Prairie Abortion Fund under the Consumer Fraud Law, alleging the nonprofit facilitated unlawful sale of abortion pills in North Dakota.
Cease & Desist Order, Prairie Abortion Fund (Jan. 16, 2026), North Dakota Attorney General
§ 18 Pending changes
No active bills with realistic prospects Legislation
Status. The 2025 legislative session has concluded. All abortion-related bills — including HB 1373 (personhood), HB 1488 (15-week legalization), HB 1477 (IVF protection), and HB 1478 (contraception protection) — were defeated.
No legislative changes to the abortion landscape are currently pending. The next regular session is in 2027, though a special session could theoretically be called.
North Dakota Monitor, Feb. 12, 2025, North Dakota Monitor
No active abortion litigation with realistic prospects of material change Litigation
Status. The North Dakota Supreme Court's November 2025 merits decision in Access Independent Health Services v. Wrigley is final at the state level. A petition to the U.S. Supreme Court is theoretically possible but would face long odds on a state-constitutional ruling.
No realistic prospect of immediate change through litigation.
No abortion-related ballot measure qualified for 2026 Ballot measure
Status. As of July 2026, no abortion-related ballot measure has qualified for the North Dakota ballot. The three measures certified for 2026 address initiative petition requirements and other structural issues.
No abortion-rights or personhood ballot measure is pending.
North Dakota Secretary of State – Measures on Ballot, North Dakota Secretary of State