(Getty Images)
An Ohio law requiring a 24-hour waiting period before abortion services will not be enforced as a lawsuit seeking to eliminate the law entirely sees its way through court, a judge ruled on Friday.
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge David C. Young not only put a temporary pause on the 24-hour waiting period, but also a minimum of two in-person visits and certain information about abortion that the state required doctors to provide before an abortion.
That information includes the “probable gestational age of the zygote, blastocyte, embryo or fetus” and “nature and purpose of the particular abortion procedure to be used,” according to state law.
Young cited the newest amendment to the state constitution as reason to rule in favor of the clinics and physicians.
“The plain language of the amendment clearly sets forth the applicable legal standard,” Young wrote. “This language is easily understood and clear.”
The decision comes following an oral argument hearing last week, in which Young heard from the Ohio Attorney General’s Office representing the state, and an attorney for abortion clinics and a physician party in the case.
The state said by legal definition, the “status quo” should be maintained in a preliminary injunction, and according to the AG’s office’s arguments, that would leave state law as it is and the regulations in place. The office of Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost issues a release Friday saying they plan to appeal the ruling and that they disagree with the judge that the waiting period and extra appointments constitute a burden.
According to Jessie Hill, attorney for the parties attempting to eliminate the laws, the status quo is now the constitutional amendment that placed reproductive rights including abortion into the Ohio Constitution after being passed by 57% of Ohio voters last November.
The amendment bars any state laws that “burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with or discriminate” against abortion care and abortion providers.
The state also argued that the Dr. Catharine Romanos didn’t have standing to sue because there were no specific patients under Romanos’ care connected to the lawsuit.
Young ruled that the new reproductive rights amendment “confers rights” to Romanos “because she is a person assisting individuals exercising their reproductive rights.”
“The challenged statutes interfere with Dr. Romanos’s ability to provide high quality, trauma informed abortion care, they negatively impact Dr. Romanos’s relationship with pregnant patients and cause emotional distress,” the ruling wrote.
The judge also cited Attorney General Dave Yost’s legal analysis of the amendment, written before the measure’s passage as an effort to explain the impact of the amendment on abortion regulation in the state.
“Prior to the amendment passing, Attorney Yost agreed with Plaintiffs’ argument as to the applicable legal standard,” Young wrote. “Now, instead of following the plain language of the amendment, defendants argue that the pre-Dobbs legal standard applies.”
But Young said the “pre-Dobbs standard” – referring to abortion standards prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to undo national abortion legalization and return the decision to the states – is “unpersuasive.”
“Defendants attempt to create ambiguity where it does not exist,” the judge wrote. “The people of Ohio voted to enshrine their reproductive freedom in the constitution through the clear language of the amendment. Doing so followed the path set forth by the (U.S.) Supreme Court in Dobbs.”
Hill called the Franklin County decision “an historic victory for abortion patients and for all Ohio voters who voiced support for the constitutional amendment to protect reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy.”
“This decision is the first step in removing unnecessary barriers to care,” Hill wrote in a statement with the ACLU of Ohio.
