Ohio House once again passes 24-hour waiting period bill for abortion care

Ohio House Republicans passed a bill Wednesday that would effectively bring back the state’s 24-hour waiting period for abortion care, despite a previous 24-hour law being blocked for violating the constitutional amendment passed by Ohio voters in 2023.

Ohio House Bill 347 requires abortion providers to meet with a patient at least 24 hours ahead of an abortion, to provide consent statements about the procedure.

Opponents of the bill said it is unnecessary and will create barriers to care for those who can’t access care close to their home, or who don’t have stable supports for things like child care and paid time off.

Supporters like anti-abortion organizations said the bill does not bar abortion from happening, but merely ensures information is being provided to patients as is required.

The Republican-led bill had the support of the party in the Ohio House on Wednesday, passing with a vote of 64-32.

Bill co-sponsor state Rep. Mike Odioso, R-Cincinnati, brought up the constitutional amendment that established abortion rights in the state constitution at the beginning of his comments on the House floor.

He claimed the bill “does not seek to re-litigate the decision of Ohio voters made in August of 2023, but rather to provide women with the full protection of informed medical consent when making a stressful, life-altering decision.”

“The legislation strikes the right balance,” Odioso claimed.

Fellow co-sponsor state Rep. Josh Williams, R-Sylvania Twp., also acknowledged the constitutional amendment, but said the legislature “was given the task of determining what regulations are reasonable and within the scope of the constitutional amendment that was passed.”

The amendment says the state “shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against” the right to abortion or the rights of a person who assists with an abortion “unless the state demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the individual’s health in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care.”

Williams directed comments specifically at Ohio House Democrats for supporting abortion care as reproductive health care.

“One side of the aisle says that abortions are health care,” Williams said. “If you believe that’s true, you should have no problem applying the same standards as the rest of the health care field.”

Democrats attempted 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.

“In 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, an OB/GYN herself, said she was “personally offended” by comments made by Republicans about OB/GYNs and abortion care providers, suggesting those in the field don’t provide necessary information to patients.

“They do provide informed consent, they do go over every risk, every benefit, and every alternative including adoption,” Somani said. “So don’t stand here and say that is not being done.”

She added she is “confident that women are capable, grown adults, who don’t require condescending guidance from elected officials to make their own choices.”

The bill now moves on to the Ohio Senate for consideration.

If passed, the bill will face legal scrutiny, and abortion rights advocates could could send the bill down the path of the current law that is unable to be enforced due to a Franklin County judge’s temporary block of it as a lawsuit goes forward.

The previous law instituted a 24-hour waiting period like the one in H.B. 347, which women’s health clinics in the lawsuit said violates the constitutional amendment Ohio has had since 2023.

The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas agreed with that, placing a temporary pause on the previous law until a final decision is made, which won’t happen until at least the fall.

On the House floor, Odioso claimed the temporary pause “has also had the effect of undermining long-standing established legislation under Ohio’s general informed consent law.”

“This preliminary ruling creates uncertainty for both patients and providers and disrupts the long-standing legal framework that has protected women’s health across the state,” Odioso said.

Anti-abortion group Ohio Right to Life praised what they called the “reflection period” included in H.B. 347, and defended legislator’s comments regarding the constitutional amendment.

“This process protects patient autonomy, strengthens trust in the medical system, and ensures decisions are made deliberately and with full awareness of potential outcomes,” the group said in a statement.

Abortion rights advocates were unsurprisingly unhappy with the passage of the bill, amid a General Assembly full of abortion regulation-related bills, the number of which continues to grow.

“When someone goes to the doctor, they want clear accurate medical information,” said Kellie Copeland, executive director of advocacy group Abortion Forward. “They don’t want to be told to come back tomorrow. They don’t want lies pushed by the government.”