Committee hears bill to require one‑hour CME on North Dakota abortion law for physicians who practice obstetrics

Representative Karen Rohrer introduced House Bill 1511, a measure to develop a one‑hour instructional continuing medical education (CME) module about North Dakota abortion law for physicians who practice obstetrics and tie completion to license renewal for those practitioners.

In opening remarks Rohrer said meetings had been held with the attorney general’s office, the governor’s legal counsel, the North Dakota Board of Medicine and stakeholder groups while drafting the bill. Dr. Jerry O'Brige, a longtime obstetrician and co‑presenter, described the proposal as a short, nonpartisan educational module designed to reduce clinician fear and confusion about the practical application of existing statute. "I envision a 1‑hour instructional module performed online with 1 hour of continuing medical education," Dr. O'Brige said, adding he expected the course to be free to participants and count toward existing CME requirements.

Why the bill was proposed

Supporters told the committee they hear ongoing anxiety among physicians about how to interpret the state’s abortion‑related statutes after the 2023 session and subsequent litigation. Proponents said a brief, legally reviewed course would give clinicians a reliable orientation to the law and how it relates to clinical practice without creating new clinical mandates.

Key details in the bill and testimony

- The bill funds a contract for development of an instructional course covering specific North Dakota statutory sections referenced in the bill; the Office of Management and Budget would hold the contract and the attorney general would review content for legal accuracy, as described in testimony. - The Board of Medicine would require physicians "engaging in the practice of obstetrics" to complete the module as a licensure or renewal requirement; the bill language included an immunity clause stating completion of the course would not create a private cause of action against the board for later legal decisions. - Dr. O'Brige suggested the module be repeated with license renewal cycles but also said repetition is useful for retention and proposed a modest one‑time cost to develop the course (he estimated roughly $50,000 in testimony).

Support and opposition

Support: North Dakota Right to Life and policy advocates and some legislators argued the course is a pragmatic, neutral way to clarify law and reduce clinician fears.

Opposition/concerns: The North Dakota Board of Medicine and the North Dakota Medical Association opposed a statutorily mandated course and raised logistical and legal concerns. Board staff said the law remains unsettled in court and questioned who would maintain, update and fund the instructional course if statutes change; the board also noted licensure timing and renewal logistics. The Medical Association objected to any mandated education, suggested a one‑time requirement would be more appropriate than repeated mandates tied to renewal, and noted the legal uncertainty made creating a repeatedly required course impractical.

Practitioner testimony

Dr. Anna Tobias, a maternal‑fetal medicine specialist who testified in opposition to HB 1488, also opposed HB 1511. Tobias said the statutory language that threatens doctors with criminal charges is not written in medical terms; she said an instructional video could not encompass all late‑stage clinical possibilities and that committees and statutory language will remain ambiguous even after a course is produced. Tobias also expressed concern that an immunity clause would not protect individual clinicians from criminal prosecution.

What the committee did

Committee members debated emergency implementation language and whether the course should be one‑time or a repeated renewal requirement. Several committee members asked whether the course should be required of family physicians, nurse practitioners and other clinicians who encounter pregnant patients; witnesses noted those groups frequently provide obstetric and emergency care in rural hospitals.

The hearing record in this excerpt shows detailed debate and amendment drafting but does not include a final committee vote. Committee members asked the sponsor and stakeholders for follow‑up on governance, funding, and logistics if the bill moves forward.