NEW YORK – A judge’s decision to temporarily block Ohio’s 24-hour waiting period for abortions disregards the seriousness of the situation faced by women considering abortion and puts pressure on them to have the procedure, the public policy division of the state’s bishops says.
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge David C. Young issued a preliminary injunction on Aug. 23 to block the law based on language in the state’s 2023 constitutional amendment that guarantees access to the procedure – a victory for abortion advocates.
“The decision to issue a temporary restraining order on Ohio’s 24-hour waiting period law shows a callous disregard for the seriousness of the situation faced by a woman considering an abortion,” said Brian Hickey, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Ohio, in an Aug. 26 statement. “This decision pressures women to have abortions against their will and without the opportunity for a forced abortion.”
The lawsuit blocking the 24-hour waiting period law came from several abortion advocates, including the Ohio branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, arguing that the rule does not promote patients’ health and violates rights guaranteed by the state’s 2023 constitutional amendment.
The lawsuit was filed on March 29 by the ACLU, the ACLU of Ohio, the 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 injunction permanent.
“This is a historic victory for abortion patients and for all Ohio voters who expressed support for the constitutional amendment protecting reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy,” Hill said. “This decision is the first step toward removing unnecessary barriers to medical care. We applaud this ruling and will work to make this injunction permanent.”
Ohio voters – about 57 percent – approved the November 2023 Issue 1 bill, which gives the state the constitutional right to “make and implement its own reproductive decisions,” including “decisions about abortion, contraception, fertility treatment, miscarriage care, and the continuation of a pregnancy.”
However, there was already a state law that required a doctor to meet the pregnant woman in a private setting at least 24 hours before the planned procedure to give the woman certain information, including the medical risks, and to confirm that she consents to the procedure without coercion.
Young ruled that Question 1 overrides the existing waiting period law.
“The wording of the amendment is clear and unambiguous,” Young said. “A person’s right to reproductive freedom is now enshrined in the Ohio Constitution. Pregnant patients have the right to make certain reproductive decisions. This includes abortion care.”
Young also noted that the text of Question 1 states: “The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, impede, or discriminate against any person or any person or entity assisting a person in the exercise of this right in the voluntary exercise of this right…” Young noted that the 24-hour waiting period law is intended to do just that.
“The mandatory delay exacerbates the burdens patients face when seeking an abortion,” Young said. “These include increasing costs, longer wait times and potentially preventing the abortion a patient seeks.”
“In addition, the unnecessary delay can increase the medical risk to the patient’s health. Emotional harm can also result from making a patient wait,” Young added.
Hickey argued just the opposite in his response statement, saying the ruling “cheats” a woman considering an abortion of the opportunity to learn about the people who can support her and the resources available to her during pregnancy and after the birth of the child.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican who has always opposed Issue 1, has announced he will appeal the decision. In an Aug. 23 statement, he said he respected the people’s voice in enforcing abortion rights by approving Issue 1, but he also disagreed with the ruling.
“We have heard the people’s voices and recognize that reproductive rights are now protected in our Constitution,” said Bethany McCorkle, a spokeswoman for Yost. “However, we respectfully disagree with the court’s decision that requiring doctors to obtain informed consent and wait 24 hours before performing an abortion is burdensome. These are essential safeguards designed to ensure that women receive appropriate care and can make voluntary choices.”
Follow John Lavenburg on X: @johnlavenburg
