The Ohio Supreme Court announced on Thursday it set a hearing date for oral arguments in a case challenging a Hamilton County judge’s decision to put Ohio’s Heartbeat abortion ban on hold.
Ohio’s highest court will hear 15-minute arguments from both sides on the case on September 27th, almost a year after Democratic Hamilton County Judge Christian Jenkins issued a preliminary injunction that put the Heartbeat Law on hold while he considers arguments in a lawsuit filed by pro-abortion activists.
In March, the Ohio Supreme Court became involved in the case by formally accepting an appeal by Attorney General Dave Yost contesting Judge Jenkins’ decision to keep put the Heartbeat Law on hold.
The state Supreme Court will consider whether Attorney General Dave Yost can appeal the lower court’s decision to put the heartbeat law on hold and whether abortion activists have “standing” or the legal authority to challenge the law in the first place.
Yost also requested that the state Supreme Court rule on whether the Ohio Constitution establishes the right to an abortion, but the court chose not to address that issue in a 4-3 vote.
The appeals case is a result of a lawsuit filed in September in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court by Planned Parenthood and Ohio abortion facilities, in which they contested Ohio’s Heartbeat Law, Senate Bill (SB) 23 passed in 2019, which went into effect after the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade. Jenkins issued the preliminary injunction in October, putting the Heartbeat Law on hold until a trial.
The Heartbeat Law prohibits abortion if an unborn baby has a detectable heartbeat.
The state appealed the preliminary injunction to Ohio’s First District Court of Appeals through Yost. Because the injunction was only preliminary and not permanent, the appeal court questioned whether it had the authority to decide.
According to the appellate court’s decision, the injunction was appealed prematurely because the trial court’s case was not yet concluded.
The appellate court’s decision would have sent the matter back to the trial court, but Yost then appealed the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, which officially took the case in March.
“If allowed to stand, the First District’s ruling will leave the state with no way to protect legislation from egregiously wrong preliminary injunctions. Trial courts that issue such injunctions have every incentive to drag out lower-court proceedings, ensuring their orders remain in effect and that state laws with which they disagree remain unenforceable for as long as possible,” Yost’s brief says.
The Ohio Supreme Court hearing is to occur just before Ohioans vote on a pro-abortion amendment to enshrine abortion into the state Constitution on November 7th.
The proposal would remove Ohio’s parental notification legislation when a minor wants an abortion and the requirement that abortionists adhere to fundamental hospital health and safety standards. The proposal also aims to permit abortions after babies have heartbeats and can feel pain.
The Ohio Supreme Court is also considering a second abortion-related lawsuit that pro-life advocates filed earlier this month.
Former State Representative Tom Brinkman from Cincinnati and former legislative candidate Jennifer Giroux said that the Ohio Supreme Court should block the abortion proposal from the November 7th ballot as the submitted petition fails to specify which state laws would need to be abolished if voters approved the constitutional amendment.
The Ohio Star contacted the Ohio Attorney General’s Office for comment but did not receive a reply before press time.
– – –
Hannah Poling is a lead reporter at The Ohio Star, The Star News Network, and The Arizona Sun Times. Follow Hannah on Twitter @HannahPoling1. Email tips to [email protected]
Photo “Ohio Supreme Court” by Joffre Essley. CC BY-SA 2.0.
