Planned Parenthood Southeast Ohio Region v. DeWine
696 F.3d 490
6th Cir.2012Background
- Ohio enacted 2004 Act 2919.123 criminalizing RU-486 distribution unless in FDA-approved protocol and gestational limits; Act in force since February 2011 except health-life exception.
- Planned Parenthood clinics/doctors challenged Act as vague, unconstitutional to bodily integrity, undue burden on abortion choice, and health-and-life protections; district court issued preliminary injunction covering health exception.
- FDA approved mifepristone in 2000; subsequent protocols (e.g., Schaff) modified dosage and administration; Planned Parenthood used off-label protocols (buccal misoprostol) with various gestational limits up to 63 days.
- Cordray v. Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region (Ohio Supreme Court) held doctors may provide mifepristone for abortion only through FDA-final-labeling up to 49 days and using FDA-approved protocols; incorporated FDA labeling into the approval letter; clarified what the Act requires.
- On remand, district court granted summary judgment for vagueness and bodily integrity; health-and-life claim reserved for trial; Rule 54(b) certification permitted appeal of some claims; on appeal, majority affirmed vagueness and bodily integrity; Moore partially dissented on undue-burden claim.
- The opinion ultimately affirms the district court’s judgment on vagueness and bodily integrity; Part VI contains Judge Moore’s partial dissent regarding the undue-burden claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of the Act | Cordray interpretation left ambiguity; planned Persuaded by off-label references. | Cordray clarified incorporation of FDA labeling; Act sufficiently definite. | Not vague after Cordray interpretation. |
| Bodily-integrity impact | Act forces state intrusion into women’s bodies by limiting abortion options. | Undue-burden framework applies; substantial intrusion not shown. | Violations not proven; upheld on bodily-integrity grounds. |
| Undue-burden on abortion right | Ban on medical abortions 50–63 days LMP imposes substantial obstacle. | Record shows no substantial obstacle; alternatives exist (surgical abortion). | Summary judgment for state on undue-burden claim; majority affirms; Moore dissents on this issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2007) (upheld partial-birth abortion ban; discusses common-method analysis)
- Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1992) (undue-burden framework for abortion-rights limits)
- Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2000) (undue burden when ban on commonly used second-trimester method)
- Danforth v. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri, 428 U.S. 52 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1976) (complete method bans evaluated for undue burden pre-viability)
- Voinovich v. Planned Parenthood of Ohio, 130 F.3d 187 (6th Cir., 1997) (undue burden analysis for most common method)
- Gonzales v. Ashcroft (D.N.D. as cited in text), 320 F. Supp. 2d 957 (N.D. Cal., 2004) (relevance to D&E/D-X distinctions (cited for context))
- Cordray v. Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region, 122 Ohio St.3d 361, 911 N.E.2d 871 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2009) (interpreted FDA labeling incorporation into the Act; gestational limit and protocols)