Patient examination chair – OB-GYN. (Getty photos.)
Republicans in the Ohio House of Representatives passed legislation on Wednesday that would effectively restore a 24-hour waiting period for abortion care in the state, despite the previous 24-hour bill being blocked for violating a constitutional amendment approved by Ohio voters in 2023.
Ohio House Bill 347 requires abortion providers to meet with the patient at least 24 hours before the abortion to provide an affidavit of consent to the procedure.
Opponents of the bill said it was unnecessary and would create barriers to care for people who don’t have access to care close to home or don’t have ongoing supports, such as child care and paid leave.
Supporters, such as anti-abortion groups, say the bill does not prohibit abortion, but only ensures that patients are provided with the necessary information.
The Republican-led bill won the party’s support in the Ohio House of Representatives on Wednesday by a 64-32 vote.
The bill’s co-author, Republican Mike Odioso of Cincinnati, began his comments in the House of Representatives by raising a constitutional amendment that added abortion rights to the state constitution.
He argued that the bill “is not intended to revisit the decision Ohio voters made in August 2023, but rather to ensure that women have the full protections of informed medical consent when making a stressful, life-changing decision.”
“The regulations strike the right balance,” Odioso said.
Another state co-sponsor, Rep. Josh Williams, R-Sylvania Twp., also affirmed the constitutional amendment but said the Legislature “has been tasked with determining what provisions are reasonable and within the scope of an adopted constitutional amendment.”
Amendment states that a state “may not, directly or indirectly, burden, punish, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against” the right to an abortion or the rights of an abortion provider “unless the state demonstrates that it uses the least restrictive means to improve an individual’s health in accordance with generally accepted and evidence-based standards of care.”
Williams specifically targeted Democrats in the Ohio House of Representatives for supporting abortion care as reproductive health care.
“One side says abortion is health care,” Williams said. “If you believe this to be true, you should have no problem applying the same standards as the rest of the health care field.”
Democrats tried to amend the bill to include a requirement that the Ohio Department of Medicaid cover in vitro fertilization and “basic coverage” for reproductive care, as state Rep. Karen Brownlee, D-Symmes Twp, explained on the floor.
“At a time when U.S. birth rates are plummeting, expanding and supporting evidence-based reproductive health care should be a top priority in our state,” Brownlee said.
The amendment was tabled along party lines 64-29.
Democratic state Rep. Anita Somani, herself an OB-GYN, said she was “personally offended” by Republicans’ comments about OB-GYNs and abortion providers, suggesting those working in the field are not providing patients with necessary information.
“They give informed consent, discuss every risk, every benefit and every alternative, including adoption,” Somani said. “So don’t stand here and say that’s not how it’s done.”
She added that she “believes that women are capable, mature adults who do not need condescending guidance from elected officials to make their own choices.”
The bill now goes to the Ohio Senate for consideration.
If the bill passes, it will face legal scrutiny, and abortion rights advocates could send the bill down the path of current law that cannot be enforced because of a ephemeral block of the bill by a Franklin County judge while the court proceeds.
The previous bill included a 24-hour grace period like the one in HB 347, which Women’s Health Clinics says in a lawsuit violates a constitutional amendment effective in Ohio since 2023.
The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas agreed, temporarily suspending the previous law until a final decision is made, which won’t be until at least the fall.
In the House, Odioso said the ephemeral pause “also had the effect of undermining long-established legislation under Ohio’s General Informed Consent Act.”
“This preliminary ruling creates uncertainty for both patients and providers and disrupts the long-standing regulatory framework that protects women’s health across the state,” Odioso said.
The anti-abortion group Ohio Right to Life praised the so-called “reflection period” included in HB 347 and defended the legislator’s comments regarding the constitutional amendment.
“This process protects patient autonomy, strengthens trust in the medical system, and ensures that decisions are made consciously and with full awareness of potential outcomes,” the group said in a statement.
Abortion rights supporters weren’t surprised by the bill’s passage in the General Assembly full of laws related to the regulation of abortionwhose number continues to grow.
“When someone goes to a doctor, they want clear, accurate medical information,” said Kellie Copeland, executive director of the advocacy group Abortion Forward. “They don’t want to be told to come back tomorrow. They don’t want the lies imposed by the government.”
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
