Ohio Court Enjoins State Abortion Laws Requiring Waiting Period, In-Person Visit
- August 30, 2024
An Ohio judge temporarily enjoined several challenged abortion restrictions in the state, including those mandating a 24-hour waiting period, an in-person visit, and certain information requirements, after voters last year enshrined reproductive care rights in the Ohio Constitution.
Franklin County Common Pleas Judge David C. Young found plaintiffs—five reproductive health care clinics and one physician—were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the abortion restrictions violated the Ohio Constitution as amended.
The voter-passed amendment included a constitutional right to an abortion up until the point of fetal viability. Under the amendment, an abortion is permitted at any point if a treating physician determines one is necessary to protect a woman’s life or health.
One of the laws at issue requires physicians to meet with pregnant patients seeking an abortion in person at least 24 hours before performing the procedure and to provide certain state-mandated information. Other provisions require physicians to offer additional state-mandated information if fetal or embryonic cardiac activity is detected prior to performing an abortion.
According to Young, the plain language of the amendment sets forth a higher legal standard for abortion restrictions than under Roe v. Wade, which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 142 S.Ct. 2228, 213 L.Ed.2d 545 (2022).
Under the amendment, the state may not directly or indirectly, burden, prohibit, or interfere with an individual’s right to reproductive health care, or with a person or entity assisting an individual in exercising that right, “unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the individual's health in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care.”
Young rejected the state’s argument that the pre-Dobbs standard for reviewing the restrictions at issue was applicable, finding the amendment unambiguous. “The people of Ohio voted to enshrine their reproductive freedom in the Constitution through the clear language of the Amendment. . . . It is inappropriate for the State to second guess the will of the voters,” Young said.
Young found “clear and convincing evidence” that the challenged statutes violated the Ohio Constitution as amended by directly or indirectly burdening patients and health care providers assisting them, including creating unnecessary delay that could increase medical risks. State-mandated information requirements also discriminate against pregnant patients seeking abortion care and interfere with and discriminate against providers of such care, including undermining the physician-patient relationship, Young said.
According to Young, the challenged statutes fail under the amendment because defendants provided no evidence the laws “advance patient health or that they are the least restrictive means to do so.”
Plaintiffs also met the other requirements for granting a preliminary injunction, including irreparable harm. “The constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and their patients are threatened. Thus, irreparable harm is presumed,” Young said.
"We have heard the voices of the people and recognize that reproductive rights are now protected in our Constitution. However, we respectfully disagree with the court's decision that requiring doctors to obtain informed consent and wait 24 hours prior to an abortion constitute a burden. These are essential safety features designed to ensure that women receive proper care and make voluntary decisions. These measures were consistently upheld under Roe v. Wade. We plan to appeal this ruling,” the Ohio Attorney General’s Office said in a statement.
Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, No. 24 CV 2634 (Ohio Ct. Cl. Aug. 23, 2024).