294 F. Supp. 3d 746
S.D. Ohio2018Background
- Ohio enacted H.B. 214 (effective March 22, 2018), which criminalizes performing or inducing an abortion if the provider knows the woman is seeking it in whole or in part because of a fetal indication of Down syndrome; violations carry felony, licensing, and civil penalties.
- Plaintiffs are Ohio abortion providers and physicians who challenge H.B. 214 as facially unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment; they moved for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement before the law's effective date.
- The law also requires physicians to attest in abortion reports that they do not know the abortion was sought because of fetal Down syndrome and directs the Ohio Department of Health to adopt compliance rules.
- Plaintiffs argue H.B. 214 prohibits pre-viability abortions for a defined class of women based on their reasons for choosing abortion, thereby violating the fundamental right to choose recognized in Roe and reaffirmed in Casey.
- Defendants defend H.B. 214 based on asserted state interests in preventing discrimination against individuals with Down syndrome, protecting the medical profession, and protecting the Down syndrome community; prosecutors defendants declined to defend the law.
- The district court found Plaintiffs likely to succeed, concluded the law unconstitutionally bans pre-viability abortions for a class of women, found irreparable harm and that the public interest favored injunction, and granted a preliminary injunction without a bond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether H.B. 214 violates Fourteenth Amendment due process/right to pre-viability abortion | H.B. 214 bans pre-viability abortions for women seeking them for fetal indications of Down syndrome, infringing the categorical right to choose | Roe/Casey do not permit abortion-for-disability claims; State may regulate to prevent discrimination and protect medical ethics/Down syndrome community | Court: H.B. 214 is facially unconstitutional because it prevents some women from obtaining pre-viability abortions; likelihood of success for Plaintiffs |
| Whether Casey’s undue-burden test controls | Plaintiffs: statute eliminates the right for a defined class, so undue-burden analysis is inapplicable; categorical rule controls | State: law is a permissible regulation justified by state interests | Court: even under undue-burden test H.B. 214 imposes an insurmountable obstacle; statute invalid |
| Whether asserted state interests (anti-discrimination, medical integrity, protecting Down syndrome community) justify the law | Such interests do not defeat the pre-viability right and cannot justify banning abortions before viability | State asserts compelling interests distinct from merely protecting potential life | Court: these interests either repackage the state’s interest in potential life (not compelling pre-viability) or cannot justify the ban on pre-viability abortions |
| Whether Plaintiffs face irreparable harm and balance/practice-of-equity favors injunction | Plaintiffs: enforcement will force patients to carry unwanted pregnancies or travel out of state, causing irreparable harm; providers face criminal and licensing sanctions | State: being enjoined from enforcing enacted statutes is a form of irreparable injury | Court: finding of likely constitutional violation establishes irreparable harm; harms to Plaintiffs/public outweigh State’s asserted injury; injunction issued without bond |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (recognizing a woman’s pre-viability right to choose abortion)
- Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (reaffirming Roe; pre-viability prohibitions unconstitutional; undue-burden standard)
- Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (establishing constitutional privacy principles)
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (discussing state interests and limits on abortion regulation)
- Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc. v. Comm’r, Ind. State Dep’t of Health, 265 F. Supp. 3d 859 (S.D. Ind. 2017) (striking down statute banning abortions for enumerated reasons; reasoning applied here)
- Isaacson v. Horne, 716 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2013) (statute forbidding certain pre-viability abortions invalid; undue-burden analysis inapplicable where right is eliminated)
- MKB Mgmt. Corp. v. Stenehjem, 795 F.3d 768 (8th Cir. 2015) (state law prohibiting pre-viability abortions unconstitutional)
- Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 241 F.3d 800 (6th Cir. 2001) (finding threatened impairment of constitutional rights establishes irreparable injury)