Case: Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost

After Ohio’s voters voted to enact the Reproductive Rights Amendment in November 2023, which protected the right for individuals to make choices regarding their reproductive healthcare, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, which challenged pre-existing abortion restrictions as violating the new constitutional amendment.   

On March 29, 2024, six plaintiffs filed suit in state court in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas against the State of Ohio, the State Medical Board, the State Department of Health, and the prosecutors in the six counties containing abortion clinics in Ohio. The plaintiffs in this suit included a family medicine physician and five abortion providers: Preterm-Cleveland, the Women’s Med Group Professional Corporation, Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio, and the Northeast Ohio Women’s Center. The case was assigned to Judge David C. Young. 

Represented by the ACLU of Ohio Foundation, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and private counsel, the plaintiffs alleged that the challenged requirements of the Ohio Revised Code 2317.56 and 2919.192– 2919.194 — the Waiting Period Requirement, the In-Person Requirement, and the State Information Requirement — individually and collectively burdened, penalized, discriminated against, interfered with, and sometimes prohibited patients’ exercise of their right to abortions and providers’ actions to assist them in doing so. The plaintiffs argued the challenged requirements forced abortion patients to (1) delay obtaining time sensitive abortion care for at least 24 hours, and often longer, at risk to their health, well-being, and privacy; (2) make an unnecessary, in-person visit to a clinic which—for the vast majority of patients—necessitated jumping through the logistical and financial hoops associated with attending at least two in-person appointments and further delayed their care, amplifying associated risks; and (3) receive state-mandated information that was at best irrelevant and at worst distressing, stigmatizing and misleading, all without medical purpose or countervailing benefit to patient health. In so doing, the challenged requirements burdened, penalized, interfered with, and discriminated against Ohioans in exercising their right to abortions and the plaintiffs in assisting them. And, in some cases, the challenged requirements even prevented Ohioans from obtaining an abortion entirely. The plaintiffs claimed the challenged requirements, which had initially been enacted in 2013, now violated Article I, Section 22 of the Ohio Constitution, the Reproductive Rights Amendment, as approved by Ohio voters in November 2023 and enacted in December 2023. The plaintiffs sought preliminary and declaratory relief that the challenged requirements were unconstitutional in light of the enactment of the Reproductive Rights Amendment.

Along with the complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to enjoin enforcement of the challenged statutes. 

On April 5, 2024, the plaintiffs amended their complaint and included eight new defendants, who were law directors responsible for prosecuting misdemeanor offenses in the counties where the plaintiffs’ abortion clinics were located.

On May 7, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted, arguing that none of the plaintiffs had standing to bring suit.

On August 16, 2024, the court held an oral argument on the motion for a preliminary injunction. Soon after, on August 23, Judge Young granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that plaintiffs' had shown by clear and convincing evidence that the challenged statutes violated the Reproductive Rights Amendment and that physician plaintiff had standing. 

As of October 9, 2024, the case is ongoing.