Case: Women's Medical Professional Corporation v. Vanderhoff

This is a state court case challenging abortion restrictions in Ohio. Plaintiffs— two business operators providing abortion care—challenged 2021 Am.S.B. No. 157 (“SB157”). 

In Ohio, a clinic providing abortion must maintain an ambulatory surgical facility (“ASF”) license by having a written transfer agreement (“WTA”) with a local hospital. However, public hospitals may not enter into a WTA with ASFs providing abortion. Alternatively, the clinic can maintain its license by obtaining a variance granted by the Ohio Department of Health (“ODH”). Nevertheless, to obtain a variance, a clinic must have at least four backup doctors. In addition to these requirements, in December 2021, the Ohio Legislature passed SB 157 prohibiting doctors who work with public medical schools or universities from serving as a backup for purposes of an ASF WTA variance application. Plaintiffs did not have a WTA, and they were unable to find backup doctors despite their efforts.

On February 25, 2022, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas Hamilton County, Ohio, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the SB157. As a co-counsel, ACLU and Planned Parenthood Federation of America sued the Ohio Department of Health. Plaintiffs brought suit under the Ohio Constitution for alleged violations of the right to pre-viability abortion, privacy, and bodily autonomy, and their right to continue to operate their businesses and due process.

On the same day, plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order followed by a preliminary injunction. On March 2, 2022, the court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) that enjoined defendants from revoking or refusing to renew plaintiffs’ ASF license or otherwise preventing plaintiffs from providing procedural abortion services for reasons related to noncompliance with SB157. The court reasoned that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on its claim and they and their patients will suffer irreparable constitutional business, and other harms if an injunction is not issued.

On March 26, 2022, defendant filed a motion for dismissal, but it was denied on June 13, 2022, stating that the defendants' motion was not well-taken.

On April 15, 2022, the court granted a preliminary injunction that enjoined defendants from revoking or refusing to renew plaintiffs’ ASF license or otherwise preventing plaintiffs from providing procedural abortion services for reasons related to noncompliance with SB157 until June 21, 2022. The court reasoned that plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their patients’ substantive due process claim, if SB 157 is enforced, plaintiffs’ patients will suffer irreparable harm by being forced to travel to far clinics, and no third parties will be harmed as plaintiffs have been providing safe abortion. On May 26, 2022, plaintiffs filed a second motion for preliminary injunction on the same grounds as the first motion, and the court granted a second preliminary injunction that is the same as the first one until final judgment is entered in this case.

On October 25, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion to stay proceedings requesting to stay the case pending completion of all litigation in Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, Hamilton C.P. No. A2203203, regarding another Ohio statute prohibiting abortion at approximately six weeks of pregnancy. The motion to stay proceedings was granted on November 30, 2022

On April 15, 2024, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint that added the argument that SB 157 violates the right to reproductive freedom of the Ohio Constitution that was newly adopted in December 2023.

The case is ongoing.