A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new chapter to title 14 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to contraceptive health care rights; and to provide a penalty.
HB 1478 would create a new chapter in Title 14 of the North Dakota Century Code establishing a statutory right to access contraception. The bill defines “contraceptive” broadly to include a wide range of birth control methods and related medications or devices, while expressly excluding abortion-causing drugs such as mifepristone and misoprostol. It also defines related terms such as health care provider, health carrier, manufacturer, and “widely accepted and evidence-based medical standards of care,” tying that standard to American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines.
The bill would prohibit the state and its political subdivisions from enforcing any law, rule, or policy that has the effect of prohibiting, limiting, delaying, or impeding access to contraception or information about contraception. It would affirm rights for individuals to receive or purchase contraceptives and to engage in contraception; for health care providers to provide or assist with contraception, while preserving a moral or religious objection consistent with federal law; for health carriers to cover contraceptive care; and for manufacturers to make, import, sell, or distribute contraceptive products. It also creates a private right of action and authorizes the attorney general or an adversely affected person to sue, with courts empowered to invalidate conflicting policies and award injunctive relief, costs, and attorney’s fees.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant because it would add a new layer of statutory protection for contraceptive access and could override state or local restrictions that interfere with that access. It would also affect health care providers, insurers, manufacturers, and public entities by exposing them to litigation if they adopt or enforce policies that restrict the rights created by the chapter. At the same time, the bill preserves enforcement of health and safety regulations for medical facilities and providers if those regulations align with evidence-based standards and are no more restrictive than necessary.
The general sentiment reflected in the available record is limited because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes, but the bill’s introduction by a bipartisan group of House and Senate sponsors suggests support from lawmakers interested in protecting contraception access. The bill ultimately failed on February 12, 2025, indicating it did not secure enough legislative support to advance.
The main point of contention is likely the scope of the rights created and the bill’s potential to preempt state or local regulation of contraception-related policies. Supporters would likely view it as a reproductive health access measure and a safeguard against restrictions, while opponents may object to the broad enforcement provisions, the private right of action, and the bill’s reliance on medical standards tied to ACOG guidelines. The explicit protection for providers who object on moral or religious grounds may have been intended to address some concerns, but the bill still appears to have raised broader policy and legal questions about state authority, health regulation, and contraception access.
HB 1478 would have added a new chapter to Title 14 establishing enforceable contraceptive health care rights in North Dakota law. It would have restricted state and local governments from adopting or enforcing policies that impede access to contraception, created rights for patients, providers, insurers, and manufacturers, and authorized civil enforcement through lawsuits, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees. It would also have preserved certain health and safety regulations if they meet an evidence-based, least-restrictive standard.
The available record suggests the bill was generally framed as a contraceptive access and reproductive health protection measure, with bipartisan sponsorship indicating some cross-party interest. However, because there are no committee transcripts or vote details, the precise debate is not documented here. The bill’s failure indicates that, despite support from its sponsors, it did not achieve sufficient legislative backing to pass.
Likely points of contention included whether the bill would unduly limit state and local authority to regulate health care, the breadth of the private right of action and fee-shifting provisions, and the use of ACOG-based standards as the benchmark for permissible regulation. Supporters would emphasize access to contraception and protection from interference, while opponents may have raised concerns about litigation exposure, regulatory preemption, and the bill’s interaction with moral or religious objections and health/safety oversight.