Ohio’s Six-Week Abortion Ban Ruled Unconstitutional by Judge \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ An Ohio judge struck down the state’s restrictive abortion law, known as the heartbeat law, citing the recent voter-approved amendment protecting reproductive rights. The 2019 law, which banned abortions after six weeks, was ruled unconstitutional. Judge Christian Jenkins stated that Ohio’s newly enshrined reproductive rights supersede the law, aligning with the wishes of the state’s voters. The state attorney general may appeal the decision, though this marks a significant win for abortion rights advocates.
Ohio’s Heartbeat Abortion Law Struck Down: Quick Look
- Court Ruling: Judge Christian Jenkins ruled Ohio’s 2019 heartbeat abortion law unconstitutional after voters passed a reproductive rights amendment.
- Reason for Decision: The judge said the law violated the newly established reproductive rights, including the right to pre-viability abortion.
- Impact: The decision blocks enforcement of the six-week abortion ban, safeguarding reproductive rights in Ohio.
- Possible Appeal: Ohio’s attorney general is reviewing the ruling and may appeal the decision.
- Legal Background: The law had been on hold following challenges and was linked to the fallout of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade.
Deep Look:
Ohio’s most restrictive abortion law, commonly referred to as the “heartbeat law,” was officially struck down on Thursday by Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Christian Jenkins. The ruling came in the wake of a voter-approved amendment to Ohio’s constitution that enshrined reproductive rights, rendering the 2019 law unconstitutional. The heartbeat law, which banned most abortions after the detection of cardiac activity — typically around six weeks into pregnancy — had faced years of legal challenges and was paused pending this final ruling.
The heartbeat law, one of the strictest abortion bans in the country, was signed into law by Republican Ohio Governor Mike DeWine in 2019. The legislation sparked immediate controversy because it prohibited abortion before many women are even aware they are pregnant. For years, the law had been blocked in federal court due to protections under Roe v. Wade, but in 2022, following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overturned Roe, Ohio sought to enforce the ban. However, its enforcement was quickly halted again in state courts as abortion rights advocates mounted new challenges, citing protections under Ohio’s state constitution.
The pivotal moment in the fight over abortion in Ohio came last year when voters passed Issue 1, a constitutional amendment that enshrines the right to reproductive autonomy, including the right to pre-viability abortion. Judge Jenkins ruled that the new constitutional amendment rendered Ohio’s heartbeat law incompatible with the state’s supreme law, stating, “Despite the adoption of a broad and strongly worded constitutional amendment, in this case and others, the State of Ohio seeks not to uphold the constitutional protection of abortion rights but to diminish and limit it.”
In his ruling, Jenkins underscored that the amendment, approved by a majority of Ohio voters, reflects the will of the people. He pointed out that Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s efforts to preserve elements of the heartbeat law, even after the amendment’s passage, ignored the message sent by the electorate.
“Ohio’s Attorney General evidently didn’t get the memo,” Jenkins remarked, noting that the Supreme Court’s decision to return abortion regulation to the states does not override newly established state constitutional rights. The court determined that Ohio’s heartbeat law, which imposed severe penalties on doctors and patients, was now incompatible with the state’s fundamental protections of individual liberty.
Legal and Legislative Battles:
The legal battle over abortion in Ohio is not new. The heartbeat law had been previously challenged in federal court following its passage in 2019. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Ohio, along with Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, filed suit, resulting in a temporary block on the law due to its violation of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that had long protected abortion rights at the federal level.
However, the tide shifted in 2022 when the Dobbs decision allowed states to set their own abortion regulations, prompting Ohio to briefly reinstate its ban. That attempt was short-lived, as opponents quickly moved the fight to state courts, arguing that Ohio’s constitution guaranteed protections broader than those afforded by federal law. The newly passed Issue 1 amendment, which enshrines the right to make and carry out reproductive decisions, became the cornerstone of the latest legal challenge.
Attorney General’s Response:
In response to the ruling, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s office expressed disappointment but indicated that they were reviewing the decision. Yost had already acknowledged that parts of the 2019 law would likely be rendered unconstitutional under the new amendment. However, he had sought to preserve other provisions of the law, such as those requiring notification, reporting, and a waiting period for patients seeking an abortion.
Yost’s office now has 30 days to decide whether to appeal Judge Jenkins’ ruling. His team described the decision as “long and complicated,” noting that many issues raised by the case were being considered by a court for the first time.
Reaction from Advocates and Opponents:
The ruling also marks a critical moment for those who campaigned for Issue 1, as it solidifies the amendment’s role in shaping Ohio’s abortion laws moving forward. “The people of Ohio spoke loud and clear about their right to reproductive freedom,” said a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood, which was one of the lead plaintiffs in the case.
On the other side, critics of the ruling, including anti-abortion advocates, decried the decision as a setback. Some argue that Issue 1 was too broadly written, making it difficult to implement reasonable regulations on abortion. They believe the heartbeat law should have been retained, given the significant public support for abortion restrictions in the past.
Implications for Future Legislation:
Yost had sought to maintain some provisions of the 2019 law, including those that would have imposed felony criminal charges on doctors performing abortions, required patients to make two in-person visits to their provider, and mandated a 24-hour waiting period before the procedure. Judge Jenkins, however, rejected these provisions, stating they conflicted with the constitutional amendment and placed undue burdens on women seeking abortions.
The Ohio litigation also serves as a bellwether for other states embroiled in similar battles over reproductive rights following the Dobbs decision. As states across the country continue to grapple with the fallout from the ruling, Ohio’s experience highlights the pivotal role of voter-approved amendments in shaping the future of abortion access.
