Ohio Injunction Issued for Abortion Statutes At Odds With State Constitutional Reproductive Rights

On August 23, 2024, an Ohio state court issued a preliminary injunction in Preterm-Cleveland et al. v. Dave Yost et al., No. 24-cv-02634, staying the enforcement of multiple Ohio civil and criminal abortion-related statutes. The Plaintiffs, a group of health care clinics providing reproductive care to patients, challenged the statutes with respect to a mandatory 24-hour waiting period before an abortion procedure can be performed. Plaintiffs also contested requirements mandating a minimum of two in-person visits and state-mandated requirements for abortion care, including a requirement that doctors provide certain information regarding “probable gestational age of the zygote, blastocyte, embryo or fetus” and “nature and purpose of the particular abortion procedure to be used.”

Plaintiffs challenged the statutes under Ohio’s newly enacted constitutional protections for abortion access, which took effect in December of last year. Oh. Const. Art. I, §22 (“the Amendment”). The Amendment includes the right to abortion care and declares an individual right to “make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions.” The Amendment’s plain text also sets forth a standard  for whether a statute runs afoul of the right to abortion access: “[t]he State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either [a]n individual’s voluntary exercise of this right (to abortion access} or [a] person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right, unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the individual’s health.” Oh. Const. Art. I, §22.

Evaluating the case under the standard set forth in the Amendment, Judge David Young granted a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the Ohio abortion statutes. In so ruling, Judge Young found that the Plaintiffs adequately demonstrated that the challenged statutes burdened, interfered with, and discriminated against patients in exercising their right to an abortion and against providers assisting patients in pursuing this right. Regarding the 24-hour waiting period, Judge Young stated that the waiting period forces abortion care providers to depart from their ethical duty to act in accordance with their patients’ best interests by denying time-sensitive care. Relatedly, Judge Young found that the in-person visit requirements “compound upon the harms created by the waiting period” in so far as it forced providers to send patients away “for absolutely no medical reason and against their best judgment.”  Lastly, Judge Young wrote that the state-mandated information that doctors must provide to patients prior to providing abortion care was misleading and “not grounded in evidence-based medical practice.” Judge Young also noted that providing said information might cause emotional distress to the patient, thereby undermining the patient’s relationship with the provider.

Takeaway:

Following Judge Young’s ruling, the Ohio Attorney General’s Office stated that it disagreed with the Judge’s ruling as to the 24-hour waiting period and planned to appeal. However, for now, Judge Young’s ruling represents an historic victory for abortion patients in Ohio. Jessie Hill of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio said in a statement after the ruling came down "[i]t's clear that the newly amended Ohio Constitution works as the voters intend: to protect the fundamental right to abortion and to forbid the state from infringing on it except when necessary to protect the health of a pregnant person."

As new developments arise, we will continue to update our Dobbs Decision Resource Center.  In the meantime, please contact one of the lawyers in Shipman’s Health Law practice group if you have questions about this ever-changing legal landscape.