Abortion

The Ohio 1st District Court of Appeals dismissed Friday a request by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, who wanted a reversal of a lower court's order that ...

The heartbeat law was in effect in Ohio until Jenkins’ decision on Oct. Yost appealed the preliminary injunction to the 1st District Court of Appeals. But on June 24, hours after the U.S. SB 23, the fetal heart tone bill, was passed by the Ohio General Assembly in 2019. A federal judge prevented the law from going into effect weeks after Gov. We will seek review by the Ohio Supreme Court,” Yost’s spokeswoman Bethany McCorkle said.

Abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy are legal in Ohio for now, after a state appeals court refused to overturn an order precluding the state's ...

Such an order is appealable only if it effectively prevents a judgment for the appealing party or prevents that party from obtaining a meaningful or effective remedy, it said. The trial judge entered a preliminary injunction in October, prompting the state’s appeal. It vacated the injunction after the top court reversed that precedent in Dobbs v. ACLU of Ohio Foundation, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, American Civil Liberties Union, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP represent the providers. The six-week ban requires physicians to perform an ultrasound examination on a pregnant person and imposes criminal penalties on professionals who perform abortions despite detecting cardiac activity. A federal trial court blocked it in July 2019 based on then-prevailing US Supreme Court precedent.

Ohio's ban on most abortions will remain blocked after the First District Court of Appeals denied the state's request to appeal a judge's preliminary block ...

Supreme Court ruling, but only briefly until the challenge under the state's constitution was filed. A previous challenge to the Ohio law's constitutionality under the U.S. Constitution was dropped after the nation's high court overturned the landmark 1973 Roe v.

Ohio's Heartbeat Law, which would ban most abortions, remains blocked. For now, Ohio abortions can continue through 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The ruling delays an eventual collision course with the Ohio Supreme Court, which will soon be under new Republican leadership.

“Regardless of what transpires at the lower courts, Ohio’s heartbeat law will ultimately be decided by the Ohio Supreme Court in 2023," Gonidakis said. The ruling "ensures that abortion up to 22 weeks of pregnancy remains legal in Ohio," the plaintiffs said in a joint statement. "Of course, any aggrieved party can appeal after the trial court issues its final judgment in the case," Judge Pierre Bergeron said in the opinion. We will seek review by the Ohio Supreme Court,” Yost spokeswoman Bethany McCorkle said Friday. It was in effect for about three months after the [A Hamilton County judge's decision to block enforcement of a state law](https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2022/09/15/abortion-ohio-six-week-ban-hold-what-you-need-know/69496093007/) that "largely bans abortion access in Ohio" will stand, for now, an appeals court said in an opinion released Friday.

The most recent denial of the state's appeal means the six-week abortion ban will remain blocked indefinitely until a final decision is made in a trial ...

"We know a lot of people still think abortion is illegal in Ohio." Hill says no matter what is eventually decided, she expects either side to appeal the result if it does not go their way. Abortion rights advocates can't call this a victory until a final decision is made following a trial at least several months from now, and the legal battle has made some people hesitant to access care.

The appeals court decision is upholding a Hamilton County judge's October decision to extend the block on the law, which placed the law on hold indefinitely ...

"The state will fight us every step of the way but we know that Senate Bill 23 violates the Ohio Constitution and we are confident that the law is on our side." The Heartbeat Law had been stalled prior to Roe v Wade's overturning, but was imposed within days of the Supreme Court's decision. That injunction allows abortion in Ohio up to 22 weeks of pregnancy. [originally blocked the law in September for two weeks](https://www.wcpo.com/news/state/state-ohio/judge-temporarily-blocks-ohio-law-banning-most-abortions-after-six-weeks), and then [the judge extended that block another two weeks.](https://www.wcpo.com/news/state/state-ohio/ohio-judge-to-extend-order-blocking-abortion-ban-for-another-2-weeks-sources-say) [Ohio Senate GOP to clarify women's health exemptions on six-week abortion ban](https://www.wcpo.com/news/government/state-government/ohio-state-government-news/ohio-senate-gop-to-clarify-womens-health-exemptions-on-six-week-abortion-ban) [Judge rules to extend block on Ohio's 'heartbeat' abortion ban](https://www.wcpo.com/news/state/state-ohio/judge-to-decide-next-steps-on-ohio-heartbeat-abortion-ban) [2 abortion rights groups launch simultaneous efforts to codify abortion rights with ballot measures](https://www.wcpo.com/news/state/state-ohio/2-abortion-rights-groups-launch-simultaneous-efforts-to-codify-abortion-rights-with-ballot-measures) [October decision to extend the block on the law](https://www.wcpo.com/news/state/state-ohio/judge-to-decide-next-steps-on-ohio-heartbeat-abortion-ban), which placed the law on hold indefinitely through a preliminary injunction.

India's recent abortion ruling is a step toward ensuring reproductive rights, but legal reforms alone cannot overcome the cultural stigma and discrimination ...

Legal reforms must be accompanied by the education of healthcare providers on safe abortions from a gender-inclusive and a rights-based perspective, especially abortions for adolescents, unmarried women, transgender and non-binary persons. This implies that transgender and non-binary people who might require abortions and reproductive healthcare are still ‘women’, which violates the right to a person’s self-determination of their gender identity and expression. Access to safe abortions forms part of the right to healthcare as upheld in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and must be legally guaranteed. Therefore, the Supreme Court judgement is also important for its inclusion of non-cis gender women. Several reports have surfaced of [women being denied abortion](https://www.vice.com/en/article/vb5aaj/indian-women-are-fighting-stigma-by-sharing-their-personal-abortion-stories) on moral grounds by doctors or being asked to bring along their partners or parents when undergoing the procedure. An important step in realising the outcomes of legal judgements is removing informal barriers. Accessing safe and legal abortions is even more complicated for women from marginalised communities. [sex selective abortions](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3498638/) and stopping female foeticides. Landmark rulings in several countries have paved the way for access to abortion services, maternal healthcare and assisted reproduction, including in countries with restrictive reproductive rights laws. A major hindrance arises in the form of conflation with existing allied laws. For adolescent pregnancies, the judgment states that it is no longer mandatory for a doctor to disclose the name and identity of a girl minor to the police, allowing underaged girls to abort pregnancies arising from consensual sex anonymously. Legislation has been put in place over the years to prohibit sex-selective abortions.

City Council approved a trio of bills on Thursday aimed at strengthening abortion rights and protecting abortion seekers and medical providers from legal ...

The order prohibits state agencies from taking part in investigations launched by other states over abortion services provided in Pennsylvania. Other pieces of the legislation protect abortion seekers and medical providers from ["vigilante"](https://phila.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5843387&GUID=BDC80BDE-E038-4F98-AF57-435C8332F4CC&Options=ID%7CText%7C&Search=220665) lawsuits lawsuits filed by residents from other states, particularly where abortion is banned or restricted. In Pennsylvania, abortion remains legal through 24 weeks of pregnancy. We need to protect the safety of all birthing persons, babies, and children here in Philadelphia, regardless of whether they call this city home, by strengthening their right to privacy when accessing reproductive healthcare." The amendment could reach the ballot for referendum as soon as May 2023 if it's approved by both houses of the state legislature early next year. "Anti-abortion states threaten to interfere with abortion care that is legal here. Councilmember David Oh, the lone Republican on City Council, opposed both bills because he believes that those protections are a matter of state law and are outside of the city's jurisdiction. Supreme Court overturned the landmark 1973 Roe v. Jackson](/abortion-supreme-court-decision-roe-v-wade-overturned/) earlier this year, which made abortion legality a matter of state law. A court order would have to be filed in order for the information to be disclosed to any party. The legislative package is a response to the U.S. "This is a public health issue.

The Ohio Court of Appeals for the First District Friday rejected the state of Ohio's request to remove an injunction against its anti-abortion law.

The results of the litigation, in both Ohio and in other states, remains to be seen. In September the Hamilton County Court imposed an [injunction](https://www.acluohio.org/sites/default/files/pretermclevelandetal-v-davidyostetal_decisionandentry-six-weekabortionban_2022-0914.pdf) against the act, arguing it potentially breached rights to abortion under the Ohio Constitution and was unlawful due to its discrimination against pregnant women. [Heartbeat Act](https://www.jurist.org/news/2019/04/ohio-passes-heartbeat-abortion-ban/) was passed in 2019 and took effect after the US Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization that there is no constitutional right to abortion in the US. In light of the possibility of the Heartbeat Act being unlawful, and the fact that the plaintiffs would likely suffer irreparable harm, the court placed an injunction upon the law’s enforcement. The court rejected the claim on jurisdictional grounds. The act will not be enforced at least until the case is fully decided on the merits.