The Ohio Supreme Court has set a hearing date to hear oral arguments for a case challenging a lower court judge’s decision to put Ohio’s six-week abortion ban on hold.
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Nearly five months after accepting the case, the Ohio Supreme Court has set a hearing date to hear oral arguments for a case challenging a lower court judge’s decision to put Ohio’s six-week abortion ban on hold.
The court will hear oral arguments in the case on Sept. 27, almost a year after a Democratic Hamilton County judge placed the law on hold indefinitely while he considers arguments in a legal challenge filed by abortion-rights groups. The Ohio Supreme Court, where Republicans hold a 4-3 majority, got involved in the case in March, when it agreed to hear an appeal from Republican Attorney General Dave Yost contesting a lower court’s decision to keep the case in Hamilton County while it plays out there.
The Ohio Supreme Court hearing will take place against the backdrop of the campaign leading up to the Nov. 7 election, when Ohioans are set to vote on whether to add abortion rights to the state constitution. The court scheduled the hearing for Sept. 27 on Thursday, two days after Ohioans overwhelmingly defeated State Issue 1, a measure that would have made it harder for the abortion-rights issue to pass.
The Ohio Supreme Court will consider whether the Ohio 1st District Court of Appeals, where Democrats hold a 3-1 majority, should have denied Yost’s appeal of Hamilton County Judge Christian Jenkins’ decision placing the heartbeat law on hold indefinitely while Jenkins considers the case. The Ohio Supreme Court also will consider whether the abortion-rights groups, including Preterm Cleveland, that sued over the heartbeat law have standing, or the legal right to file the case in the first place.
Yost, a Republican who opposes abortion, contends the appellate court should have granted his appeal, which would have allowed the case to move closer to being decided by the Ohio Supreme Court. He also contends the abortion-rights groups lack legal standing.
Yost wanted the Ohio Supreme Court to rule on the overall question of whether the the heartbeat law is illegal under the Ohio Constitution. The high court declined to do so. But if the high court decides that the abortion-rights groups don’t have legal standing, that could see the case dismissed and the heartbeat law reinstated.
While the court case has played out, abortion in Ohio generally has been legal up to 22 weeks into pregnancy, which was the status quo before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, striking down broad legal protections for abortions nationwide. Shortly after that decision, the heartbeat law, which Gov. Mike DeWine signed in January 2019, went into effect.
But it went on hold in September, a decision Jenkins made while he considered the Hamilton County lawsuit.
The Ohio Supreme Court is considering a second abortion-related case. That case, filed last month by a former Republican state lawmaker and ex-Republican state legislative candidate, asks the Ohio Supreme Court to strike the abortion-rights amendment from the November ballot.
The case argues that amendment backers improperly failed to identify which state laws would have to be repealed if the constitutional amendment were to be adopted, something the amendment’s backers say is unprecedented and not required by state law.
The ballot issue would have the effect of nullifying the heartbeat law, and potentially also could strike down other abortion-related restrictions Republican lawmakers have passed over the years.
The proposed amendment would generally guarantee that patients could make their own reproductive decisions, including birth control, fertility treatment, continuing a pregnancy, or abortion and miscarriage care up until viability, which is around 22 to 24 weeks.
After that point, the state could regulate abortion. However, abortions after that cutoff could be permitted “if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient’s treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.”
