PROSPECT HEIGHTS — A judge’s decision to temporarily block Ohio’s 24-hour abortion waiting period law disregards the seriousness of the situation of women who are considering abortions and pressures them into getting the procedure, says the public policy arm of the state’s bishops.
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Court Judge David C. Young issued a preliminary injunction on Aug. 23 to block the law based on the language in the 2023 state constitutional amendment that guarantees access to the procedure — a win for abortion advocates.
“The decision to grant a preliminary injunction for Ohio’s 24-hour waiting law shows a callous disregard for the seriousness of a woman’s situation who is considering an abortion,” Brian Hickey, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Ohio, said in an Aug. 26 statement. “With this decision, women will be pressured into having abortions against their will and without opportunities for coercion screening.”
The lawsuit to block the 24-hour waiting period law came from several pro-abortion groups, including the Ohio branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, which argues that the requirement doesn’t advance patient health and violates the rights guaranteed by the 2023 state constitutional amendment.
The lawsuit was filed on March 29 by the ACLU, the ACLU of Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the law firm Covington & Burling LLP. Jessie Hill, cooperating attorney for the ACLU of Ohio, called the ruling “historic” in an Aug. 23 statement, adding that the organization will now push to make the temporary injunction permanent.
“This is a historic victory for abortion patients and for all Ohio voters who voiced support for the constitutional amendment to protect reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy,” Hill said. “This decision is the first step in removing unnecessary barriers to care. We celebrate this ruling and will push forward to make this injunction permanent.”
Ohio voters — about 57% — approved Issue 1 November 2023, which created a constitutional right in the state to “make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions,” including “decisions about abortion, contraception, fertility treatment, miscarriage care, and continuing pregnancy.”
Already on the books, however, was a state law requiring a physician to meet with the pregnant woman in a private setting at least 24 hours before the procedure is scheduled to provide the woman with certain information, including the medical risks, and confirm she consents to the procedure without coercion.
Young ruled that Issue 1 supersedes the existing waiting period law.
“[T]he language of the Amendment is clear and unambiguous,” he said. “A person’s right to reproductive freedom is now enshrined in the Ohio Constitution. Pregnant patients are afforded the right to make certain reproductive choices. This includes abortion care.”
Young also noted that the text of Issue 1 states that “the State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either an individual’s voluntary exercise of that right or a person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right.” Young determined that the 24-hour waiting period law does just that.
“The mandatory delay exacerbates the burdens that patients experience in seeking abortion care,” Young said. “These include increasing costs, prolonging wait times, and potentially preventing a patient from receiving the type of abortion they would prefer.”
“Further, the unnecessary delay can increase the medical risk to the patient’s health. Emotional harm may also result in a patient being forced to wait,” Young added.
Hickey, in his response statement, argued the opposite. He said that the ruling “cheats” a woman considering an abortion of the opportunity to learn about the people available to accompany her and the resources to assist her during her pregnancy and after the birth of the child.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican who has always advocated against Issue 1, has said he will appeal the decision. He said in an Aug. 23 statement that he respects the voice of the people in protecting the right to abortion through approving Issue 1, but he disagrees with this ruling, as well.
“We have heard the voices of the people and recognize that reproductive rights are now protected in our constitution,” said Bethany McCorkle, a spokesperson for Yost. “However, we respectfully disagree with the court’s decision that requiring doctors to obtain informed consent and wait 24 hours before an abortion constitutes a burden. These are essential safety features designed to ensure that women receive proper care and make voluntary decisions.”