Ohio Judge Temporarily Blocks State Abortion Laws in Landmark Ruling

 

In a significant legal development, an Ohio county judge issued a temporary injunction on Friday against several state laws that collectively imposed a 24-hour waiting period for obtaining an abortion. This ruling marks the first judicial decision interpreting the 2023 constitutional amendment that enshrines the right to abortion access in the state.

Republican Attorney General Dave Yost has already indicated his intention to appeal the decision.

Franklin County Common Pleas Judge David C. Young ruled that the language of Issue 1, the 2023 amendment, was "clear and unambiguous." He concluded that attorneys representing Preterm Cleveland and other abortion clinics and physicians had demonstrated that the contested statutes "burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, and discriminate against" both patients seeking abortions and providers facilitating the procedure.

The laws in question included not only the 24-hour waiting period but also a requirement for an in-person consultation and state mandates that those seeking abortions receive specific information. Judge Young asserted that these provisions do not promote patient health.

"This is a historic victory for abortion patients and for all Ohio voters who supported the constitutional amendment to safeguard reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy," said Jessie Hill, a cooperating attorney with the ACLU of Ohio, in a statement. "The amended Ohio Constitution clearly operates as intended by the voters: to protect the fundamental right to abortion and to prevent state interference unless necessary to protect the health of a pregnant person."

Hill added that the ACLU would continue to advocate for making the temporary injunction permanent.

Judge Young dismissed the state’s argument that legal standards preceding the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, should apply. He noted that the Dobbs ruling, which transferred decision-making power on abortion to the states, does not diminish the protections afforded by the recent amendment.

Responding to the ruling, a spokesperson for Yost’s office, Bethany McCorkle, acknowledged the constitutional protection of reproductive rights but expressed disagreement with the court's decision. "We respect the voices of the people, but we disagree that requiring informed consent and a 24-hour waiting period constitute an undue burden. These measures are crucial to ensuring that women receive appropriate care and make voluntary decisions."