North Dakota
Letter: Libraries have a place for everyone
Throughout the state of North Dakota, just a few organizations are trying to advance the concept that the voices of the marginalized haven’t any place of library cabinets. They’ve introduced forth requires the censorship of books and different sources that relate to the lives of those that are homosexual, queer, or transgender or that inform the tales of individuals of shade. By claiming that these works are immoral and subversive; they try and sway elected and non-elected officers to desert constitutional ideas and particular person rights. They’re resorting to intimidation and threats whereas concentrating on the security and livelihoods of library employees, educators and board members who’re devoted to the general public service and our communities.
North Dakota Library Affiliation strongly condemns these acts of censorship and intimidation.
We’re dedicated to defending the constitutional rights of all people, of all ages, to make use of the sources and providers of libraries. We champion and defend the liberty to talk, the liberty to publish, and the liberty to learn, as promised by the First Modification of the Structure of america.
We stand against censorship and any effort to coerce perception, suppress opinion, or punish these whose expression doesn’t conform to what’s deemed to be orthodox in historical past, politics or perception. The unfettered change of concepts is crucial to the preservation of a free and democratic society.
With the liberty to learn underneath risk, the NDLA, together with its Govt Board, Sections, and different items stand firmly with our members, your entire library group, allied organizations, and all these throughout this nation who select to train their very own proper to learn and entry data freely, and we name on others to do the identical.
Kerrianne Boetcher is president of North Dakota Library Affiliation. She wrote this letter with the help of the NDLA government board.
This letter doesn’t essentially mirror the opinion of The Discussion board’s editorial board nor Discussion board possession.
North Dakota
National monument proposed for North Dakota Badlands, with tribes' support
BISMARCK, N.D. — A coalition of conservation groups and Native American tribal citizens on Friday called on President Joe Biden to designate nearly 140,000 acres of rugged, scenic Badlands as North Dakota’s first national monument, a proposal several tribal nations say would preserve the area’s indigenous and cultural heritage.
The proposed Maah Daah Hey National Monument would encompass 11 noncontiguous, newly designated units totaling 139,729 acres (56,546 hectares) in the Little Missouri National Grassland. The proposed units would hug the popular recreation trail of the same name and neighbor Theodore Roosevelt National Park, named for the 26th president who ranched and roamed in the Badlands as a young man in the 1880s.
“When you tell the story of landscape, you have to tell the story of people,” said Michael Barthelemy, an enrolled member of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation and director of Native American studies at Nueta Hidatsa Sahnish College. “You have to tell the story of the people that first inhabited those places and the symbiotic relationship between the people and the landscape, how the people worked to shape the land and how the land worked to shape the people.”
The National Park Service oversees national monuments, which are similar to national parks and usually designated by the president to protect the landscape’s features.
Supporters have traveled twice to Washington to meet with White House, Interior Department, Forest Service and Department of Agriculture officials. But the effort faces an uphill battle with less than two months remaining in Biden’s term and potential headwinds in President-elect Donald Trump ‘s incoming administration.
If unsuccessful, the group would turn to the Trump administration “because we believe this is a good idea regardless of who’s president,” Dakota Resource Council Executive Director Scott Skokos said.
Dozens if not hundreds of oil and natural gas wells dot the landscape where the proposed monument would span, according to the supporters’ map. But the proposed units have no oil and gas leases, private inholdings or surface occupancy, and no grazing leases would be removed, said North Dakota Wildlife Federation Executive Director John Bradley.
The proposal is supported by the MHA Nation, the Spirit Lake Tribe and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe through council resolutions.
If created, the monument would help tribal citizens stay connected to their identity, said Democratic state Rep. Lisa Finley-DeVille, an MHA Nation enrolled member.
North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum is President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Interior Department, which oversees the National Park Service, including national monuments. In a written statement, Burgum said: “North Dakota is proof that we can protect our precious parks, cultural heritage and natural resources AND responsibly develop our vast energy resources.”
North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven’s office said Friday was the first they had heard of the proposal, “but any effort that would make it harder for ranchers to operate and that could restrict multiple use, including energy development, is going to raise concerns with Senator Hoeven.”
North Dakota
North Dakota Supreme Court Considers Motion to Reinstate Abortion Ban While Appeal is Pending
The North Dakota Supreme Court hears arguments involving abortion via Zoom on Nov. 21, 2024. (Screenshot Bismarck Tribune via the North Dakota Monitor)
(North Dakota Monitor) – North Dakota’s solicitor general called on the North Dakota Supreme Court to reinstate an abortion law struck down by a lower court until a final decision in the case is made, arguing that the ban must remain in effect because the state has a compelling interest in protecting unborn life.
“We say that not to be dramatic, but because the district court seems to have lost sight of that,” Phil Axt told justices Thursday.
The ban, signed into law by Gov. Doug Burgum in April 2023, made abortion illegal in all cases except rape or incest if the mother has been pregnant for less than six weeks, or when the pregnancy poses a serious physical health threat.
South Central Judicial District Court Judge Bruce Romanick vacated the law in September, declaring it unconstitutionally vague and an infringement on medical freedom.
He further wrote that “pregnant women in North Dakota have a fundamental right to choose abortion before viability exists.”
The law went into effect just weeks after the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled the state’s previous abortion ban unconstitutional and found that women have a right to seek an abortion for health reasons.
Axt argued Thursday that Romanick’s judgment striking down the 2023 law conflicts with the Supreme Court’s prior ruling, and that Romanick’s legal analysis contains “glaring errors.” Axt claimed there’s nothing in the state constitution that supports a right to abortion until the point of viability.
“It’s been clear since our territorial days that in order to justify killing another human being, there must be a threat of death or serious bodily injury,” Axt said.
Meetra Mehdizadeh, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said to reverse Romanick’s decision even temporarily would be to disregard many serious problems he identified with the statute.
The ban does not sufficiently explain to doctors when they may legally provide abortions — which chills their ability to provide necessary health care for fear of prosecution, she said.
“The district court correctly held that the ban violates the rights of both physicians and patients, and staying the judgment and allowing the state to continue to enforce an unconstitutional law would be nonsensical,” Mehdizadeh said.
Axt countered that the law is not vague, and that doctors are incorrect to assume they would face criminal penalties for good-faith medical decisions.
If doctors are confused about the ban, said Axt, “the solution is not striking down the law — it is providing some professional education.”
In briefs filed with the court, the state also argued that Romanick’s judgment vacating the law seems to conflict with his original order declaring the law unconstitutional.
While the order identifies a right to abortion until the point of fetal viability, Romanick’s judgment does not include any reference to viability. The state is now confused as to whether it can now enforce any restrictions on abortion, Axt said.
North Dakota still must observe abortion regulations established under other laws not challenged in the lawsuit, Mehdizadeh said.
Axt further claimed that Romanick’s judgment should be put on hold because it addresses a “novel” area of law, and because it takes a supermajority of the Supreme Court to declare a statute unconstitutional.
“Statutes should not be presumed unconstitutional until this court has had an opportunity to weigh in on the matter, and a super majority of this court is of that opinion,” Axt said.
Justice Daniel Crothers said he questioned Axt’s logic.
“Any novel issue where the district court declares something unconstitutional, it’s sounding like you’re suggesting that we should presume that it’s wrong,” Crothers said to Axt.
The appeal is the latest step in a lawsuit brought against the state by a group of reproductive health care doctors and a Moorhead, Minnesota-based abortion provider, Red River Women’s Clinic. The clinic previously operated in Fargo, but moved across the state line after Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.
The ban, passed with overwhelming support by both chambers of the Republican-dominated Legislature, set penalties of up to five years in prison and a maximum fine of $10,000 for any health care professionals found in violation of the law.
The arguments were only on whether Romanick’s decision should be put on hold during the appeal, not on the merits of the case itself, which the Supreme Court will consider separately. The justices took the matter under advisement.
North Dakota
Four western North Dakota volleyball teams punch a ticket to state semifinals
BISMARCK, N.D. (KFYR) – The quarterfinal round of the NDHSAA State Volleyball tournament played out in the Fargodome Thursday with four teams from the west side of the state advancing to the semifinals.
In Class A, Century avenged a quarterfinal loss from a year ago to advance to the semifinals. Meanwhile, Legacy upended West Fargo Horace in an upset.
The two teams will face off in the semifinals, which guarantees that a team from the west will make the Class A State Championship game. The Patriots are 2-0 against the Sabers this season.
In Class B, South Prairie-Max and Medina-Pingree-Buchanan both advanced to the semifinals in their first ever state tournament appearance.
The Royals defeated Kenmare-Bowbells 3-0. The Thunder defeated Central McLean 3-0. That guarantees that a team from the west will also make the Class B State Championship game as the Royals and Thunder will face off in the semifinals.
Copyright 2024 KFYR. All rights reserved.
-
Business1 week ago
Column: OpenAI just scored a huge victory in a copyright case … or did it?
-
Health1 week ago
Bird flu leaves teen in critical condition after country's first reported case
-
Business6 days ago
Column: Molly White's message for journalists going freelance — be ready for the pitfalls
-
World1 week ago
Sarah Palin, NY Times Have Explored Settlement, as Judge Sets Defamation Retrial
-
Science3 days ago
Trump nominates Dr. Oz to head Medicare and Medicaid and help take on 'illness industrial complex'
-
Politics5 days ago
Trump taps FCC member Brendan Carr to lead agency: 'Warrior for Free Speech'
-
Technology4 days ago
Inside Elon Musk’s messy breakup with OpenAI
-
Lifestyle5 days ago
Some in the U.S. farm industry are alarmed by Trump's embrace of RFK Jr. and tariffs