The regional judge annuls Ohio's restrictive abortion policy, justifying it based on the electorate-endorsed provision safeguarding reproductive freedoms.
The implementation of the 2019 law restricting most abortions, once fetal heartbeats are detected as early as six weeks into pregnancy, was temporarily halted before Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Christian Jenkins due to a challenge.
Jenkins remarked that following the US Supreme Court's abolition of Roe v. Wade and transfer of authority over abortion to the states, "Ohio's Attorney General seemed to have skipped the memo."
The judge commented that Republican Attorney General Dave Yost's request to preserve all but one provision of the law, even after a majority of Ohio's voters ratified an amendment securing the right to pre-viability abortions, debunked the belief that the Supreme Court decision merely granted states control over the issue.
"Despite the enactment of a comprehensive and emphatic constitutional amendment, in this instance and others, the State of Ohio is not interested in safeguarding the constitutional safeguard of abortion rights, but rather in reducing and restricting them," he wrote. Jenkins asserted that his judgment mirrored the will of the voters.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio took legal action on behalf of a group of abortion providers in the state, marking the second round of cases filed to challenge the law.
"This is a significant judgment, demonstrating the strength of Ohio's new Reproductive Freedom Amendment in practice," Jessie Hill, cooperating attorney for the ACLU of Ohio, stated. "The six-week ban is overtly unconstitutional and has no place in our legislation."
An initial lawsuit was initiated in federal court in 2019, where the law was first barred under the Roe v. Wade landmark decision. It was permitted to take effect temporarily in 2022 after Roe was revoked. Opponents of the law then pursued the state court system, where the ban was once more delayed. They argued that the law violated safeguards in Ohio's Constitution ensuring individual liberty and equal protection, and that it was unconstitutionally ambiguous.
After his predecessor twice vetoed the measure citing Roe, Republican Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed the 2019 law once appointments by then-President Donald Trump had solidified the Supreme Court's conservative majority and ignited hope among abortion opponents.
The Ohio litigation has transpired alongside a nationwide uproar over abortion rights following the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe, encompassing constitutional amendment initiatives in Ohio and a slew of other states. Issue 1, the amendment Ohio voters approved last year, grants every person in Ohio "the right to make and execute their own reproductive decisions."
Yost, acknowledged in court filings this spring that the amendment rendered the Ohio ban unconstitutional, yet sought to retain additional elements of the 2019 law, including certain notification and reporting provisions.
Jenkins further highlighted that Yost's actions contradicted the intention of Issue 1, a constitutional amendment passed by Ohio voters, which ensures the right to make reproductive decisions, stating, "The State of Ohio, under Governor DeWine's leadership, is attempting to circumvent the will of the people and continue restricting abortion rights, despite the clear language of the amendment."
In light of the ongoing politics surrounding abortion rights, the case serves as a testament to the complex interplay between constitutional amendments, state laws, and the judicial system in shaping reproductive health policies.
