In a recent development in Ohio, a county judge has issued a temporary block on multiple state laws that collectively enforced a 24-hour waiting period for individuals seeking an abortion in the state. This act marks the first legal decision regarding the 2023 constitutional amendment guaranteeing access to abortion procedures. Republican Attorney General Dave Yost has plans to appeal the ruling.
Judge David C. Young of the Franklin County Common Pleas court deemed the language of last year’s Issue 1 to be “clear and unambiguous.” The lawsuit filed by Preterm-Cleveland and other abortion clinics and physicians demonstrated that the laws in question imposed undue burdens on patients and providers, hindering their ability to exercise abortion rights.
The contested regulations included the mandatory 24-hour waiting period, an in-person visit requirement, and state mandates necessitating specific information for individuals seeking abortions. Judge Young asserted that these provisions do not promote patient health and well-being.
Cooperating attorney for the ACLU of Ohio, Jessie Hill, expressed that the court ruling represents a significant win for abortion patients and Ohio voters who supported the constitutional amendment safeguarding reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy. Hill stated that the ACLU will continue to pursue the case to secure a permanent injunction.
Judge Young disregarded the state’s argument that the legal standard predating the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court should apply. The ruling in the Dobbs case, which superseded Roe v. Wade, shifted decision-making authority back to individual states.
The Attorney General’s office defended the 24-hour waiting period and informed consent laws, contending that these measures were consistently upheld under Roe v. Wade, which had protected legal abortions for nearly five decades. However, acknowledging the protection of reproductive rights in the state constitution, the Attorney General’s spokesperson, Bethany McCorkle, expressed disagreement with the court’s view that these requirements constitute a burden, emphasizing their role in ensuring women’s safety and autonomy in decision-making.