Ohio Supreme Court Raises Questions About State’s Strategy to Resume Abortion Ban
Ohio Supreme Court justices have expressed skepticism about the state’s legal strategy to enforce a ban on abortion, except in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. The state’s lawyer, Benjamin Flowers, faced intense questioning from the justices, indicating that they may be reluctant to lift the county judge’s order that has been blocking the law since last October. Additionally, the court is also examining whether Preterm Cleveland and other Ohio clinics have the necessary legal standing to challenge the ban.
Flowers argued that the state should have the right to appeal the order if it can demonstrate irreparable harm caused by the continued suspension of the law. He argued that each abortion that takes place under the law’s injunction constitutes harm to the state. Ohio’s ban, signed into law by Republican Governor Mike DeWine in 2019, prohibits most abortions once cardiac activity can be detected, which can occur as early as six weeks into pregnancy, often before a woman realizes she is pregnant.
Flowers expressed concern that if the appellate court’s ruling denying Ohio’s request to appeal the order is upheld, it could set a precedent where common pleas courts can indefinitely suspend the enforcement of state laws. He cited the potential for lengthy legal battles and delays in implementing laws while discovery is conducted and injunctions are issued.
On the question of legal standing, Preterm’s attorney, B. Jessie Hill, argued that the clinics and their physicians are the appropriate parties to challenge the ban, as they provide time-sensitive health care. Hill stated that pregnant women seeking abortions are not in a position to engage in lengthy legal battles and do not remain pregnant for very long. Flowers countered this argument by highlighting that the landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, was brought in the name of an individual patient.
Justice Jennifer Brunner challenged Flowers’ assertion that abortion clinics lack a necessary close relationship to the individuals covered by the lawsuit and argued that the medical profession operates under a Hippocratic oath, emphasizing the compassionate and ethical nature of healthcare providers.
This legal battle in Ohio follows the US Supreme Court decision to overturn its landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide. Consequently, states now have the authority to determine their own abortion laws. Ohio clinics filed a lawsuit in state court, asserting that the Ohio Constitution protects the right to an abortion. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost requested that the state Supreme Court decide on the core issue of whether the Ohio Constitution upholds the right to abortion, but the court deferred to the lower courts on this matter.
The Ohio Supreme Court’s in-depth questioning of the state’s legal strategy signifies a cautious approach to lifting the county judge’s order and restarting the enforcement of the abortion ban. The court is also considering the issue of legal standing for clinics to challenge such laws. This case holds significant implications for future abortion regulation in Ohio and highlights the broader debate surrounding reproductive rights across the United States.
