Southern Ohio District Court abortion pill ruling

Southern Ohio District Court Judge Susan Diott, last Monday, rejected arguments that the 2004 Ohio law that restricts the use of the abortion-inducing RU-486 pill by making it illegal for doctors to prescribe it after the seventh week of pregnancy was unconstitutionally vague and violated a woman's right to choose by forcing her to choose a surgical abortion over the medication. (Decision)

The case that started back in August 2004 with Planned Parenthood's having filed a complaint in Southern Ohio U. S. District Court challenging "the constitutionality of the Ohio abortion-inducing drug statute on the grounds that it was void for vagueness, violated patients’ rights to bodily integrity, lacked an exception to protect the life or health of the patient, and unduly burdened patients' right to an abortion; seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining the state of Ohio from enforcing it, and a declaration that the statute violates the right to due process of law."

The District Court found for Planned Parenthood, but, on appeal, the Sixth Circuit, while affirming in part, relying on Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New England (2006) , also held that the absence of an exception for the life or health of the woman does not necessarily justify an injunction against the entire statute, and remanded the case to determine the proper scope of the preliminary injunction. [ Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region v. Taft (C.A.6, 2006).]

In response to another appeal over the last seven years, the Sixth Circuit sua sponte certified two questions of state law to the Ohio Supreme Court in 2008 seeking an interpretation of the Act. [ Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region v. Strickland ]

The Supreme Court's opinion stated that "[t]he plain language of R.C. 2919.123 mandates that physicians providing mifepristone to patients for the purpose of inducing an abortion do so in accordance with the FDA drug approval letter and the final printed labeling it incorporates, including compliance with the 49-day gestational limitation and the treatment protocols and dosage indications expressly approved by the FDA." [ Cordray v. Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region, 122 Ohio St. 3d 361, 2009 Ohio 2972 (2009)]

In light of the Ohio Supreme Court's opinion, the Sixth Circuit vacated the permanent injunction issued in 2006, noting, however, that the preliminary injunction based on the Act's lack of a health or life exception should remain in force, again remanding it for consideration of the Ohio Supreme Court's opinion, "as well as issues identified in [the] previous remand and any other issues that the parties may raise." [ Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region v. Strickland, (6th Cir. 2009).]

Last Monday, Judge Diott denied Planned Parenthood's renewed motion for summary judgment, along with the State of Ohio's motion as to Planned Parenthood's claim that the Act unconstitutionally lacks an exception for the health or life of the woman, GRANTING the state's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Planned Parenthood’s’ claims that the Act is unconstitutionally vague, that the Act violates a woman’s right to bodily integrity, and that the Act imposes an undue burden on a patient’s right to choose abortion.