394 F.Supp.3d 796
S.D. Ohio2019Background
- Ohio enacted S.B. 23 ("Heartbeat Protection Act") to take effect July 11, 2019; it criminalizes abortions after detection of cardiac activity (generally ~6 weeks LMP) with limited exceptions for death or serious, irreversible harm.
- Plaintiffs are abortion providers and physicians who challenge the Act as facially unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment and seek a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement.
- At ~6 weeks LMP many pregnancies are pre-viability and many women do not yet know they are pregnant; logistical and legal barriers (scheduling, payment, travel, parental consent, 2‑visit waiting period) make obtaining abortion before cardiac activity detectable difficult.
- The Act imposes criminal penalties (felony, fines), possible medical-board sanctions, and civil liability against providers; Plaintiffs argued the law will effectively ban nearly all abortions in Ohio (~90%).
- The parties agreed no discovery or evidentiary hearing was necessary; the district court decided the preliminary injunction motion on briefs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether S.B. 23 violates the constitutional right to pre-viability abortion (undue burden/viability test) | S.B. 23 bans virtually all abortions by ~6 weeks LMP and, in a large fraction of cases, places a substantial obstacle to pre‑viability abortion | Advances in medical science alter viability concept; legislature may protect fetal life earlier (viability line is allegedly outdated) | Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed; S.B. 23 imposes an undue burden because it prohibits most pre‑viability abortions and conflicts with Casey/Roe |
| Whether Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm absent injunction | Denial will cause irreparable constitutional harm to patients' Fourteenth Amendment rights; clinics can assert patients' rights | State interest in fetal life exists but not strong enough pre‑viability to justify prohibition | Court: Enforcement would cause per se irreparable harm; this factor favors Plaintiffs |
| Whether injunction would harm others / state interests | No cognizable harm to Defendants beyond enforcing statute; preserves status quo protecting constitutional rights | State suffers injury when statutes are enjoined (sovereign interest) | Court: Balance favors Plaintiffs; preserving long‑standing precedents outweighs asserted state harm |
| Public interest in granting injunction | Public interest supports enforcement of constitutional rights and preventing unconstitutional deprivation | Public interest in protecting fetal life asserted by state | Court: Public interest favors injunction to uphold constitutional protections |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (constitutional right to abortion)
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (viability/undue burden framework for pre‑viability abortion restrictions)
- Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (clarifies undue burden analysis)
- Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (purpose of preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo)
- Cincinnati Women’s Servs. v. Taft, 468 F.3d 361 (Sixth Circuit application of Casey large‑fraction test)