Last week, North Dakota legislators enacted the nation’s strongest abortion restrictions. The new law forbids abortions after six weeks, when a fetal heartbeat can be detected. Regardless of viewpoints on the measure, the law is inappropriate because it knowingly violates the Constitution.

The bill conflicts with the Roe v. Wade ruling that allows abortion bans only after a fetus is viable – about 24 weeks into the pregnancy. Despite knowing the bill undoubtedly challenges Roe v. Wade, the governor of North Dakota and state legislature approved the ban.

Gov. Jack Dalrymple said, “Although the likelihood of this measure surviving a court challenge remains in question, this bill is nevertheless a legitimate attempt by a state legislature to discover the boundaries of Roe v. Wade.”

The bill is one of many different legislative efforts across the country to restrict abortion on the state level. Some states are trying to circumvent Roe v. Wade by personhood amendments.

These amendments to state constitutions define a fertilized egg as a person. Thus, abortion would be a prosecutable offense. But these measures have been met with limited success. Mississippi legislators, for example, voted against a personhood amendment last October.

Other states are making abortion clinics harder to open or operate. Virginia is now considering a bill mandating all clinics be built to hospital standards, threatening the availability of the procedure because the states’ clinics cannot pay for facility upgrades. These measures to stop abortion through legislative loopholes is concerning for those who believe abortion should be accessible.

The North Dakota measure seems to be a way for anti-abortion activists to make the Supreme Court reconsider Roe v. Wade. Before it reaches the Supreme Court, it will need to be challenged in the lower courts, which could deem it unconstitutional. Meanwhile, the state faces the prospect of paying attorney fees while defending the law.

States like North Dakota may well want to restrict abortion, but the Supreme Court has already spoken. Instead of focusing time and effort on a wasted endeavor, these states could be working to prevent unwanted pregnancy in other ways. Properly providing birth control and contraceptives would be far more effective than legal steps to reduce abortions.

A study by the Washington University School of Medicine found that people who have access to contraceptives have lower teen pregnancy rates and fewer abortions than the U.S. average. North Dakota is one of several states that promotes abstinence-only education, a type of education correlated with higher teen pregnancy rates. Study after study suggests abstinence-only education is ineffective.

If so many people in the state were invested in the “sanctity of life,” more should be done to reduce unwanted pregnancy. Abstinence-only education demonstrates the state is not wholeheartedly committed to solving the problem.

North Dakota politicians’ behavior suggests effectiveness is not being considered. Instead, unsupported political and religious agendas are being prioritized.

Our country remains fairly divided on the topic of abortion and whether a fetal heartbeat is equivalent to a human being. But North Dakota’s new law is not good policy, as it directly challenges Roe v. Wade and knowingly does little to actually prevent unwanted pregnancy.

Harmen Rockler is a senior newspaper and online journalism and political science major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at horockle@syr.edu or followed on Twitter at @LeftofBoston.

Published on April 2, 2013 at 2:00 am