--- title: "Ohio — abortion law" description: "In November 2023, Ohio voters amended the state constitution to guarantee the right to make one's own reproductive decisions, including abortion. Abortion is therefore legal in Ohio up to the point of fetal viability, which is typically around 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy. After viability, abortion…" type: "legislation" jurisdiction: "Ohio" as_of_date: "2026-07-12" source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/legislation/oh.html" --- # Ohio — abortion law _Ohio · United States_ ## Overview **Constitutionally protected to viability** Ohio's constitution protects abortion up to fetal viability (≈22-24 weeks LMP), with post-viability abortion permitted to protect the patient's life or health. In November 2023, Ohio voters amended the state constitution to guarantee the right to make one's own reproductive decisions, including abortion. Abortion is therefore legal in Ohio up to the point of fetal viability, which is typically around 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy. After viability, abortion remains legal if the treating physician determines it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient's life or health. The state's previously enacted six-week 'heartbeat' ban is permanently blocked by a court order because it violates this constitutional amendment. Several other pre-existing restrictions — including a 24-hour waiting period, a telehealth ban on medication abortion, and physician-only dispensing rules — are also currently blocked by court orders while litigation continues. > "Every individual has a right to make and carry out one's own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on: contraception; fertility treatment; continuing one's own pregnancy; miscarriage care; and abortion. However, abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability. But in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient's treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient's life or health." > — Ohio Const. art. I, § 22 **Legal analysis** Ohio Constitution Art. I, § 22 (the Reproductive Freedom Amendment), adopted November 7, 2023 and effective December 7, 2023, provides that '[e]very individual has a right to make and carry out one's own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on… abortion.' The state may not burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against the exercise of this right unless it demonstrates the least restrictive means to advance health under evidence-based standards. Abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability, defined as 'the point in a pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient's treating physician, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus with reasonable measures,' determined case by case. Post-viability abortion cannot be prohibited if the treating physician determines it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient's life or health. The amendment is self-executing. On October 24, 2024, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas permanently enjoined R.C. 2919.195 (the six-week heartbeat ban) as unconstitutional under this amendment. The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the core injunction on January 7, 2026 (Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, 2026-Ohio-23), though narrowed its scope regarding ancillary provisions. Statutes still on the books but unenforced include the 20-week post-fertilization ban (R.C. 2919.201), the post-viability ban (R.C. 2919.17), method bans on D&E (R.C. 2919.15) and D&X (R.C. 2919.151), and a ban on abortion sought because of a Down syndrome diagnosis (R.C. 2919.10), among others. Many of these are subject to ongoing constitutional challenges. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Const. art. I, § 22, Section 22(A), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-constitution/section-1.22) · Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, 2026-Ohio-23 (1st Dist.), ¶2, [Courthouse News / Ohio First District Court of Appeals](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/ohio-coa-abortion-injunction-opinion.pdf)* ## At a glance Every machine-readable determination in the research document. Each value is derived from a sourced finding below. | Field | Value | | --- | --- | | Legal classification | Protected by constitution | | Gestational limit weeks | 22 | | Limit measured from | Last menstrual period | | Abortion currently available | Yes | | Ban or limit enjoined | Yes | | Mother expressly exempt | Yes | | Mother prosecutable in practice | No | | Self managed abortion criminalized | Unclear | | Abortion charged as homicide | No | | Fetal homicide law | Yes | | Fetal wrongful death action | Yes | | Personhood language in law | Yes | | Personhood contradiction | Yes | | Medication abortion distinct status | Yes | | Mailing pills banned | Unclear | | Method bans | D and e, D and x | | Telehealth prescribing allowed | Unclear | | Physician only law | Yes | | Provider max penalty | Felony 4th degree, 6-18 months; license revocation | | Helpers criminally exposed | Unclear | | Travel assistance criminalized | No | | Civil bounty law | No | | Shield state | No | | Waiting period hours | — | | State scripted counseling | No | | Ultrasound required | None | | In person visits required | 0 | | Parental involvement | Consent one parent | | Judicial bypass available | Yes | | Spousal consent or notice on books | No | | Medicaid coverage | Hyde only | | Private insurance restricted | Yes | | State funding posture | Defunds providers | | Rape incest exception | Yes | | Exceptions present | Life, Physical health, Rape, Incest, Ectopic miscarriage carveout | | Major pending change | Yes | ## Definitions **Includes pregnant woman herself** Ohio defines abortion as purposeful termination of a human pregnancy by any person, including the pregnant woman herself, with intent other than live birth or removal of a dead fetus. Under Ohio law, the term 'abortion' means the purposeful ending of a human pregnancy by anyone, including the pregnant woman, when the intention is something other than producing a live birth or removing a fetus or embryo that has already died. The law also says that abortion is considered the practice of medicine or surgery. This broad definition means a person who self-manages an abortion could theoretically fall within the law's scope, though specific criminal provisions generally target providers, not the pregnant woman. > "As used in the Revised Code, 'abortion' means the purposeful termination of a human pregnancy by any person, including the pregnant woman herself, with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus or embryo." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.11 **Legal analysis** R.C. 2919.11 defines 'abortion' as 'the purposeful termination of a human pregnancy by any person, including the pregnant woman herself, with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus or embryo.' The statute further states that 'abortion is the practice of medicine or surgery for the purposes of section 4731.41 of the Revised Code.' Notably, the definition explicitly includes the pregnant woman herself. Elsewhere, R.C. 2919.16 provides definitions operative in the post-viability context: 'unborn child' means 'an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth'; 'pregnant' means 'the human female reproductive condition, that commences with fertilization, of having a developing fetus'; 'viable' means the stage of development where 'there is a realistic possibility of the maintaining and nourishing of a life outside of the womb with or without temporary artificial life-sustaining support.' The statutory definition carves out removal of a dead fetus or embryo, which excludes miscarriage management. Ectopic pregnancy is not expressly mentioned but is generally treated as outside the abortion definition because the intent is to save the mother's life, not terminate the pregnancy per se. IVF/embryos outside the womb are not addressed in the abortion definitions. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.11, Section 2919.11, [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.11) · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.16, Section 2919.16(L), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.16)* **Editor's note.** The inclusion of 'the pregnant woman herself' in the definition of abortion (R.C. 2919.11) creates tension with express mother-exemption provisions scattered through the abortion code. However, the definition appears to be descriptive rather than punitive — it defines the act, but specific criminal penalties are in separate sections. ## Current status **Legal to viability ≈22-24 wks LMP** Under Ohio's Reproductive Freedom Amendment (effective Dec. 2023), abortion is a constitutional right up to fetal viability; the six-week heartbeat ban is permanently enjoined. Abortion is currently legal in Ohio up to the point of fetal viability, which is generally between 22 and 24 weeks measured from the first day of the last menstrual period. The physician determines viability on a case-by-case basis. After viability, an abortion must be permitted if the treating physician believes it is needed to protect the pregnant person's life or health. This framework comes from Ohio's Reproductive Freedom Amendment, added to the state constitution by voters in November 2023. The state's previous 'heartbeat' law, which banned abortion after about six weeks, has been permanently blocked by a court and cannot be enforced. > "However, abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability. But in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient's treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient's life or health." > — Ohio Const. art. I, § 22(B) **Legal analysis** Ohio Const. art. I, § 22, effective December 7, 2023, guarantees every individual the right to make and carry out their own reproductive decisions, including abortion. The state may restrict abortion only after fetal viability — defined by the pregnant patient's treating physician on a case-by-case basis — and even then, abortion cannot be prohibited if the treating physician determines it is necessary to protect the patient's life or health. The amendment is self-executing. The previously operative six-week ban, R.C. 2919.195 (enacted 2019 by S.B. 23), was permanently enjoined by the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas on October 24, 2024. On appeal, the First District Court of Appeals on January 7, 2026 (2026-Ohio-23) affirmed the injunction as to the core ban (R.C. 2919.195), while narrowing the injunction's scope with respect to ancillary provisions. The State conceded R.C. 2919.195 is unconstitutional under the amendment. Additional statutory gestational limits remain on the books but their enforceability is uncertain under the constitutional amendment: R.C. 2919.201 bans abortion at 20 weeks post-fertilization (≈22 weeks LMP) with a life/health exception; R.C. 2919.17 bans post-viability abortion with a life/health exception. Neither is actively being enforced against providers performing pre-viability abortions, but both may be enforceable after viability consistent with the amendment. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Const. art. I, § 22(B), Section 22(B), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-constitution/section-1.22) · Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, 2026-Ohio-23 (1st Dist.), ¶2, [Ohio First District Court of Appeals / Courthouse News](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/ohio-coa-abortion-injunction-opinion.pdf) · Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, Hamilton C.P. No. A-2203203 (Oct. 24, 2024), [ACLU of Ohio](http://www.acluohio.org/cases/preterm-cleveland-et-al-v-yost-et-al)* **Editor's note.** The exact upper limit of pre-viability protection is physician-determined case by case; typical viability falls between 22-24 weeks LMP. The 20-week post-fertilization ban (R.C. 2919.201, ≈22 weeks LMP) remains on the books but has not been separately adjudicated under the new constitutional amendment. ## Law-in-effect vs. law-on-the-books **Six-week ban permanently enjoined** The heartbeat ban (R.C. 2919.195) is permanently enjoined; the state conceded its unconstitutionality under Article I, Section 22; ancillary S.B. 23 provisions partially reinstated on appeal. Ohio's six-week abortion ban cannot be enforced. A state trial court permanently blocked it in October 2024, and the state's attorney general conceded it is unconstitutional under the new Reproductive Freedom Amendment. An appeals court upheld this core ruling in January 2026. Some related provisions from the same 2019 law — such as certain reporting and documentation requirements — that the trial court had also blocked were partially reinstated by the appeals court and sent back for further proceedings. Separately, Ohio's 24-hour waiting period requirement with mandatory in-person counseling, its ban on telehealth for medication abortion, and its rule limiting medication abortion prescribing to physicians only are all currently blocked by preliminary injunctions while separate lawsuits proceed. > "The State concedes that R.C. 2919.195 is unconstitutional, but contends that the injunction is overbroad. ... we reverse the trial court's injunction prohibiting the State from enforcing most of S.B. 23's provisions, leave in place the unchallenged portion restraining enforcement of R.C. 2919.195, and remand the cause for further proceedings." > — Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, 2026-Ohio-23 (1st Dist.) **Legal analysis** Multiple enforcement layers exist: (1) Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost (Hamilton Cty. C.P. No. A-2203203): On October 24, 2024, the trial court permanently enjoined enforcement of R.C. 2919.195 and numerous ancillary S.B. 23 provisions. On appeal, the First District Court of Appeals (2026-Ohio-23, Jan. 7, 2026) affirmed the injunction as to R.C. 2919.195 (the state conceded its unconstitutionality) but reversed and remanded as to the ancillary provisions, finding the trial court erred by adjudicating constitutionality of provisions Preterm never challenged and misapplied severability analysis. The court left in place the portion restraining enforcement of R.C. 2919.195. (2) Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost (Franklin Cty. C.P. No. 24 CV 2634): On August 23, 2024, the court preliminarily enjoined Ohio's 24-hour waiting period and mandatory in-person counseling requirements (R.C. 2317.56 and related provisions) as likely unconstitutional. Discovery and dispositive motions are ongoing. (3) Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region v. Ohio Dept. of Health (Hamilton Cty. C.P.): On April 20, 2021, the court preliminarily enjoined Ohio's telehealth ban on medication abortion. On August 29, 2024, a second preliminary injunction blocked enforcement of laws limiting medication abortion to physicians only and requiring adherence to outdated FDA labeling for mifepristone. On July 8, 2025, a third preliminary injunction was granted blocking additional provisions that could punish APCs. (4) The Down Syndrome abortion ban (R.C. 2919.10) was upheld by the Sixth Circuit en banc in Preterm-Cleveland v. McCloud, 994 F.3d 512 (6th Cir. 2021), before Dobbs and before the Ohio constitutional amendment; its constitutionality under state constitutional law has not been adjudicated. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, 2026-Ohio-23 (1st Dist.), ¶3, [Ohio First District Court of Appeals / Courthouse News](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/ohio-coa-abortion-injunction-opinion.pdf) · Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, Franklin C.P. No. 24 CV 2634 (Aug. 23, 2024), [ACLU of Ohio](http://www.acluohio.org/cases/preterm-cleveland-et-al-v-yost-et-al-waiting-period-challenge) · Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region v. Ohio Dept. of Health (multiple injunctions 2021, 2024, 2025), [ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/cases/planned-parenthood-southwest-ohio-region-et-al-v-ohio-department-of-health-et-al)* **Editor's note.** The First District Court of Appeals' reversal of the injunction as to ancillary S.B. 23 provisions means some reporting and documentation provisions may no longer be enjoined, but their enforceability under the Reproductive Freedom Amendment remains an open question on remand. ## Exceptions ### Life of the mother **Life exception in all bans** Every Ohio abortion restriction contains an exception to prevent the death of the pregnant woman. Under Ohio law, no abortion restriction can prevent a physician from performing an abortion necessary to save the pregnant patient's life. Even the now-enjoined heartbeat ban contained this exception, requiring a physician's written declaration. The constitutional amendment goes further: post-viability, abortion cannot be prohibited at all if the treating physician determines it is necessary to protect the patient's life or health. > "But in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient's treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient's life or health." > — Ohio Const. art. I, § 22(B) **Legal analysis** Every operative abortion restriction in the Ohio Revised Code includes an exception to prevent the death of the pregnant woman. R.C. 2919.195(B) (heartbeat ban, enjoined) permitted abortion when a physician determined it 'necessary… to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.' R.C. 2919.201(B)(1)(b) (20-week post-fertilization ban) uses substantially identical language. R.C. 2919.17(B)(1)(b) (post-viability ban) also includes a life exception. The constitutional standard in Art. I, § 22 is more protective: 'in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient's treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient's life or health.' *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Const. art. I, § 22(B), Section 22(B), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-constitution/section-1.22) · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.195(B), Section 2919.195(B), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.195)* ### Physical health **Physical health exception** Ohio's abortion restrictions include exceptions to prevent serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. Every significant Ohio abortion restriction contains an exception for the pregnant person's physical health. This is framed as preventing 'a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.' Mental health conditions are explicitly excluded from this definition. > "'Serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function' means any medically diagnosed condition that so complicates the pregnancy of the woman as to directly or indirectly cause the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. … and does not include a condition related to the woman's mental health." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.16(K) **Legal analysis** R.C. 2919.195(B) (heartbeat ban, enjoined) permits abortion to 'prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.' R.C. 2919.16(K) defines this term: 'any medically diagnosed condition that so complicates the pregnancy… as to directly or indirectly cause the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function,' including pre-eclampsia, inevitable abortion, premature rupture of membranes, and may include diabetes and multiple sclerosis, but 'does not include a condition related to the woman's mental health.' The 20-week ban (R.C. 2919.201(B)(2)) and post-viability ban (R.C. 2919.17(B)(2)) explicitly exclude claims based on mental health. The constitutional standard under Art. I, § 22 speaks more broadly of protecting the pregnant patient's 'life or health' without limiting health to physical health. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.16(K), Section 2919.16(K), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.16)* **Editor's note.** The statutory exclusion of mental health from the physical-health exception may conflict with the broader constitutional language protecting 'the pregnant patient's life or health' without qualification. This tension has not been adjudicated. ### Mental health **Not recognized in statutes** Ohio statutes explicitly exclude mental health conditions from the physical-health exception; the constitutional amendment may provide broader protection. Ohio's abortion restriction statutes do not include a standalone mental health exception. In fact, the laws explicitly say that mental health conditions do not count as a basis for the physical-health exception. However, the state constitutional amendment protects the patient's 'health' without specifying physical only, which could be read more broadly. This tension has not been resolved by Ohio courts. > "No abortion shall be considered necessary under division (B)(1)(b) of this section on the basis of a claim or diagnosis that the pregnant woman will engage in conduct that would result in the pregnant woman's death or a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman or based on any reason related to the woman's mental health." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.201(B)(2) **Legal analysis** R.C. 2919.16(K) explicitly excludes 'a condition related to the woman's mental health' from the definition of 'serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.' R.C. 2919.201(B)(2) and 2919.17(B)(2) independently state: 'No abortion shall be considered necessary… based on any reason related to the woman's mental health.' The Ohio Constitution Art. I, § 22 protects the pregnant patient's 'life or health' without limiting 'health' to physical health. Whether this constitutional language supersedes the statutory mental-health exclusion has not been litigated. **Conflicting authority.** Statutory exclusion of mental health (R.C. 2919.16(K), 2919.201(B)(2), 2919.17(B)(2)) may conflict with Ohio Const. art. I, § 22 which broadly protects 'the pregnant patient's life or health' without qualification. This has not been litigated. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.201(B)(2), Section 2919.201(B)(2), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.201)* **Editor's note.** Constitutional 'health' could encompass mental health, but Ohio courts have not addressed whether the amendment's unqualified 'health' language supersedes the statutory mental-health exclusion. ### Rape **Not an abortion ban exception** Ohio's abortion restrictions do not include a standalone rape or incest exception to the gestational limits; however, rape and incest are relevant to Medicaid and insurance coverage. Ohio's gestational-limit abortion laws do not contain a rape or incest exception. The heartbeat ban (now enjoined), the 20-week ban, and the post-viability ban have only life and physical-health exceptions. Rape and incest are relevant solely to public funding: under Ohio law, state Medicaid funds may cover abortion in cases of rape or incest reported to law enforcement, in addition to life-endangerment. But being a victim of rape or incest does not by itself create any additional right to abortion under the state's restrictions. > "'Nontherapeutic abortion' means an abortion that is performed or induced when the life of the mother would not be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or when the pregnancy of the mother was not the result of rape or incest reported to a law enforcement agency." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 9.04(A)(1) **Legal analysis** No Ohio abortion restriction statute contains a rape or incest exception to the prohibition. R.C. 2919.195, 2919.201, and 2919.17 all provide exceptions only for life and serious physical-health risks. However, Ohio's definition of 'nontherapeutic abortion' in R.C. 9.04(A)(1) — which governs funding restrictions — excludes from that term an abortion 'when the pregnancy of the mother was the result of rape or incest reported to a law enforcement agency.' This means that state Medicaid funds (and state employee health plans) may cover abortion in cases of rape or incest reported to law enforcement. The law-enforcement-reporting requirement is a significant practical barrier. Because the Reproductive Freedom Amendment protects abortion pre-viability regardless of the reason, the absence of rape/incest exceptions in statutory gestational limits is largely moot for pre-viability abortions. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 9.04(A)(1), Section 9.04(A)(1), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-9.04)* **Editor's note.** Because the constitutional amendment protects pre-viability abortion irrespective of the reason, the absence of rape/incest exceptions in statutory gestational limits has limited practical effect for pre-viability care. ### Incest **Only relevant to public funding** Incest is not an exception to Ohio's abortion restrictions but is recognized (with law-enforcement report) for purposes of state Medicaid and insurance coverage. Like rape, incest is not an exception to Ohio's abortion bans or gestational limits. It matters only for public funding: the state will cover abortion through Medicaid if the pregnancy resulted from incest that was reported to law enforcement. Otherwise, the constitutional amendment protects pre-viability abortion regardless of the reason. > "'Nontherapeutic abortion' means an abortion that is performed or induced when the life of the mother would not be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or when the pregnancy of the mother was not the result of rape or incest reported to a law enforcement agency." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 9.04(A)(1) **Legal analysis** Same analysis as the rape exception: incest appears only in the definition of 'nontherapeutic abortion' under R.C. 9.04(A)(1), which allows state funding when pregnancy results from 'rape or incest reported to a law enforcement agency.' It does not appear as an exception in any criminal prohibition. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 9.04(A)(1), Section 9.04(A)(1), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-9.04)* ### Fatal fetal anomaly **No fetal anomaly exception** Ohio law does not include a fatal fetal anomaly exception in any abortion restriction; the constitutional amendment protects pre-viability abortion regardless of the reason. None of Ohio's abortion restriction statutes contains a specific exception for fatal fetal anomalies. Because the state constitution protects the right to abortion before viability regardless of the reason, the absence of this exception does not impose a practical barrier before viability. After viability, abortion is permitted only when necessary to protect the patient's life or health — and a fatal fetal anomaly might meet the health standard depending on the physician's judgment, but there is no specific statutory safe harbor. **Legal analysis** No Ohio statute provides a distinct fatal fetal anomaly exception. Post-viability, abortion is permitted under Ohio Const. art. I, § 22 when necessary to protect 'the pregnant patient's life or health,' and under R.C. 2919.17(B)(1)(b) when necessary to prevent death or 'a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.' A fatal fetal diagnosis could potentially qualify under either standard but there is no statutory guarantee. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### Ectopic pregnancy & miscarriage care **Carved out by definition** Ohio's abortion definition excludes removal of a dead fetus or embryo; ectopic pregnancy treatment is treated as medical management, not abortion. Treatment for ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage management are not considered 'abortion' under Ohio law. The state's abortion definition expressly excludes procedures done 'to remove a dead fetus or embryo,' which covers miscarriage care. Treatment of ectopic pregnancy — which is a life-threatening condition — has never been treated as abortion under Ohio law and would fall under the life exception even if it were. > "'Abortion' means the purposeful termination of a human pregnancy by any person, including the pregnant woman herself, with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus or embryo." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.11 **Legal analysis** R.C. 2919.11 defines abortion as termination 'with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus or embryo.' This expressly carves out management of miscarriage (removal of a dead fetus or embryo). Ectopic pregnancy treatment is not addressed in the abortion chapter but is standard emergency medical care; it has never been prosecuted as abortion in Ohio. The Ohio Attorney General's office issued an explainer in July 2022 clarifying that Ohio's heartbeat law does not restrict treatment for ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.11, Section 2919.11, [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.11) · Ohio Attorney General, Explainer Regarding Ohio's Heartbeat Law Exceptions (July 2022), [Ohio Attorney General](https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Briefing-Room/News-Releases/Heartbeat-Law-Explainer.aspx)* ## Methods ### Procedural surgical **Legal; D&E and D&X bans on books** Procedural abortion is legal to viability; Ohio has method-specific bans on D&E (dismemberment) and D&X (partial-birth) abortion, but these are largely moot pre-viability given the constitutional amendment. Surgical abortion is legal in Ohio up to the point of fetal viability. Two method-specific bans remain on the books: a ban on dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortion, which Ohio calls 'dismemberment feticide,' and a ban on intact dilation and extraction (D&X), called 'partial birth feticide.' Both laws exempt the pregnant woman from prosecution. Both contain exceptions when the procedure is necessary to preserve the mother's life or prevent serious physical impairment. The D&E ban is a fourth-degree felony; the D&X ban is a second-degree felony. Under the constitutional amendment, any enforcement of these bans before viability would be unconstitutional. After viability, they could theoretically apply, subject to the amendment's health and life protections. > "No person shall knowingly perform or attempt to perform a dismemberment abortion when the dismemberment abortion is not necessary, in reasonable medical judgment, to preserve the life or physical health of the mother as a result of the mother's life or physical health being endangered by a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.15 **Legal analysis** R.C. 2919.15 bans 'dismemberment abortion,' defined as dismembering a living unborn child and extracting it piece by piece using clamps, forceps, tongs, scissors, etc. Violation is a fourth-degree felony ('dismemberment feticide'). Exceptions: necessary 'in reasonable medical judgment, to preserve the life or physical health of the mother as a result of the mother's life or physical health being endangered by a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.' Suction curettage and suction aspiration are expressly permitted. The pregnant woman, employees acting at direction of the violator, and pharmacists filling prescriptions are exempt (R.C. 2919.15(D)). R.C. 2919.151 bans the 'partial birth procedure' regardless of viability; violation is a second-degree felony ('partial birth feticide'). Both statutes contain mother-exemption. Under Ohio Const. art. I, § 22, enforcement of these method bans before viability would be unconstitutional. After viability, they may be enforceable subject to the amendment's requirement that abortion not be prohibited when necessary to protect the patient's life or health. **Conflicting authority.** Method bans on the books have not been expressly adjudicated under Ohio Const. art. I, § 22. Pre-viability enforcement would be unconstitutional; post-viability enforceability is uncertain. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.15, Section 2919.15(B), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.15) · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.151, Section 2919.151(B), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.151)* **Editor's note.** Whether the D&E and D&X bans survive the Reproductive Freedom Amendment has not been litigated. Section 22's requirement that restrictions use 'the least restrictive means' sets a high bar that method bans may not meet. ### Medication **Legal; dispensing rules largely enjoined** Medication abortion is legal to viability; statutory restrictions on telehealth prescribing, APC prescribing, and FDA labeling compliance are all preliminarily enjoined. Medication abortion — using mifepristone and misoprostol — is legal in Ohio up to fetal viability. Several Ohio laws that restricted how medication abortion may be provided are currently blocked by court orders. A law requiring the prescribing physician to be physically present when the first dose is taken (effectively banning telehealth) is blocked. A law limiting medication abortion prescribing to physicians only — excluding nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and certified nurse-midwives — is blocked. And a law requiring that mifepristone be used only according to its outdated FDA label (limiting use to 10 weeks) rather than current evidence-based protocols is also blocked. These blocks are preliminary, meaning the litigation is ongoing. In practice, medication abortion is available up to at least 11 weeks based on current evidence. > "No physician shall personally furnish or otherwise provide an abortion-inducing drug to a pregnant woman unless the physician is physically present at the location where the initial dose of the drug or regimen of drugs is consumed at the time the initial dose is consumed." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.124(B) **Legal analysis** Medication abortion is subject to several statutory restrictions, most currently enjoined. R.C. 2919.123 restricts distribution of mifepristone to physicians who comply with all federal requirements; violations are a fourth-degree felony (third degree for repeat offenses). Division (D)(1) exempts 'a pregnant woman who obtains or possesses RU-486 (mifepristone) for the purpose of inducing an abortion to terminate her own pregnancy.' R.C. 2919.124 requires the physician to be 'physically present at the location where the initial dose of the drug or regimen of drugs is consumed' — effectively a ban on telehealth; violation is a fourth-degree felony. The Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas preliminarily enjoined R.C. 2919.124 on April 20, 2021. A second preliminary injunction (August 29, 2024) blocked enforcement of: (1) the physician-only restriction as applied to advanced practice clinicians, and (2) the requirement to follow outdated FDA labeling for mifepristone. A third preliminary injunction (July 8, 2025) blocked additional provisions that could punish APCs for providing medication abortion. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.124(B), Section 2919.124(B), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.124) · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.123(D)(1), Section 2919.123(D)(1), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.123) · Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region v. Ohio Dept. of Health (2021, 2024, 2025 injunctions), [ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/cases/planned-parenthood-southwest-ohio-region-et-al-v-ohio-department-of-health-et-al)* **Editor's note.** All three preliminary injunctions are interlocutory; final adjudication is pending. The practical availability of medication abortion could change if any injunction is dissolved. ### Self managed **Mother exempt; status unclear** Multiple statutes expressly exempt the pregnant woman from criminal liability for abortion; she is also exempt from prosecution for obtaining mifepristone for self-use; but the abortion definition includes her and no blanket statutory immunity exists. The legal status of self-managed abortion in Ohio is unclear. On one hand, several Ohio abortion statutes expressly say the pregnant woman cannot be charged under those laws. The mifepristone distribution law explicitly exempts a pregnant woman who obtains the medication for her own use. The heartbeat ban, the 20-week ban, the post-viability ban, the D&E ban, the D&X ban, and the Down syndrome ban all contain language shielding the pregnant woman from prosecution under those sections. On the other hand, Ohio's definition of abortion explicitly includes 'the pregnant woman herself,' and no single statute provides a universal immunity for self-managed abortion. The state's fetal homicide law includes a carve-out that prevents it from being applied to a pregnant woman for acts during her pregnancy. In practice, there are no known recent prosecutions of women for self-managing an abortion in Ohio, but the statutory framework lacks a clean, universal safe harbor. > "In no case shall the definitions of the terms 'unlawful termination of another's pregnancy,' 'another's unborn,' and 'such other person's unborn' … be applied or construed … in a manner so that the offense is applied or is construed as applying to a woman based on an act or omission of the woman that occurs while she is or was pregnant." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.09(C)(2) **Legal analysis** Ohio presents a fragmented picture. The mother is expressly exempted from criminal liability under R.C. 2919.198 (for violations of R.C. 2919.193, .194, .195), R.C. 2919.201(H) (20-week ban), R.C. 2919.17(I) (post-viability ban), R.C. 2919.15(D)(1) (D&E ban), R.C. 2919.151(E) (D&X ban), R.C. 2919.10(F) (Down syndrome ban). R.C. 2919.123(D)(1) exempts a pregnant woman from the prohibition on distributing mifepristone when she obtains it for her own use. R.C. 2901.01(B)(2)(b) and R.C. 2903.09(C)(2) both provide that the definition of 'person' for Title XXIX and the definition of 'unlawful termination of another's pregnancy' shall not be applied to a pregnant woman based on acts or omissions during pregnancy that result in stillbirth, in-utero death, or injury to her unborn child. However, there is no single statute that universally exempts a pregnant woman from all criminal liability for self-managing an abortion. The definition of abortion in R.C. 2919.11 expressly includes 'the pregnant woman herself,' creating a theoretical possibility of prosecution under general laws. The self-executing nature of Ohio Const. art. I, § 22 provides an affirmative constitutional defense, but this has not been tested in court. **Conflicting authority.** R.C. 2919.11 includes 'the pregnant woman herself' in the abortion definition, yet multiple statutes exempt the mother from prosecution. No single universal exemption exists; the constitutional amendment provides a defense but is untested in self-managed context. *Sources — Verified at source · Low confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.09(C)(2), Section 2903.09(C)(2), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2903.09) · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.198, Section 2919.198, [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.198) · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.123(D)(1), Section 2919.123(D)(1), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.123)* **Editor's note.** Editors should flag the gap between piecemeal statutory exemptions and the absence of a universal safe harbor. In practice, prosecutions of women for self-managed abortion appear nonexistent in Ohio, but the statutory framework leaves theoretical exposure. ## Actors ### Who may perform **Physician-only; APC restrictions enjoined** Ohio law requires only licensed physicians to perform or prescribe abortions; restrictions barring advanced practice clinicians from medication abortion are preliminarily enjoined. Under Ohio statutes still on the books, only licensed physicians may perform abortions or prescribe abortion medications. However, a court order currently blocks enforcement of the law as applied to advanced practice clinicians — such as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and certified nurse-midwives — for medication abortion. This means that, in practice, APCs can currently provide medication abortion in Ohio while the litigation continues. For surgical abortion, the physician-only restriction remains in effect and is not currently enjoined. Additionally, Ohio law requires that surgical abortions be performed in ambulatory surgical facilities that have a written transfer agreement with a local hospital. > "No person shall knowingly give, sell, dispense, administer, or otherwise provide RU-486 (mifepristone) to another for the purpose of inducing an abortion … unless the person … is a physician." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.123(A) **Legal analysis** R.C. 2919.123(A) limits distribution of mifepristone to physicians. R.C. 2919.124(B) limits furnishing abortion-inducing drugs to physicians. R.C. 2919.12 historically restricted abortion to physicians. On August 29, 2024, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the physician-only restriction as applied to advanced practice clinicians for medication abortion (Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region v. Ohio Dept. of Health). On July 8, 2025, a third preliminary injunction further blocked provisions that could punish APCs. For surgical abortion, Ohio law requires procedures in ambulatory surgical facilities with written transfer agreements with local hospitals (Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region v. Vanderhoff, ongoing federal litigation). *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.123(A), Section 2919.123(A), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.123) · Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region v. Ohio Dept. of Health (preliminary injunctions 2024-2025), [ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/cases/planned-parenthood-southwest-ohio-region-et-al-v-ohio-department-of-health-et-al)* **Editor's note.** APC prescribing for medication abortion is protected only by preliminary injunction; final adjudication pending. ### Criminal civil exposure #### Pregnant woman **Expressly exempt; low risk** Multiple Ohio abortion statutes expressly exempt the pregnant woman from criminal and civil liability; the homicide code also shields her. The pregnant woman is expressly shielded from prosecution under every major Ohio abortion statute. The laws banning abortion after detection of a fetal heartbeat, at 20 weeks post-fertilization, post-viability, for Down syndrome, and using D&E or D&X methods all explicitly state that the pregnant woman is not guilty of violating those sections, nor of attempting, conspiring, or being complicit in a violation. She is also shielded from civil penalties under these laws. The homicide code similarly prevents prosecution of a pregnant woman for acts during pregnancy that cause fetal death. The medication abortion law explicitly permits a pregnant woman to obtain and possess mifepristone for her own use. In practice, the risk of prosecution for obtaining or self-managing an abortion is low. > "A pregnant woman on whom an abortion is performed or induced in violation of section 2919.193, 2919.194, or 2919.195 of the Revised Code is not guilty of violating any of those sections; is not guilty of attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or complicity in committing a violation of any of those sections; and is not subject to a civil penalty based on the abortion being performed or induced in violation of any of those sections." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.198 **Legal analysis** Express exemptions: R.C. 2919.198 (heartbeat-law violations); R.C. 2919.201(H) (20-week ban); R.C. 2919.17(I) (post-viability ban); R.C. 2919.10(F) (Down syndrome ban); R.C. 2919.15(D)(1) (D&E ban); R.C. 2919.151(E) (D&X ban); R.C. 2919.123(D)(1) (mifepristone possession); R.C. 2901.01(B)(2)(b) (definition of 'person' for Title XXIX excludes applying to pregnant woman for acts during pregnancy); R.C. 2903.09(C)(2) (homicide/assault definitions exclude application to pregnant woman for self-directed acts). These exemptions are piecemeal — each applies to a specific statute — but collectively cover the field of abortion-specific offenses. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.198, Section 2919.198, [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.198) · Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.01(B)(2)(b), Section 2901.01(B)(2)(b), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2901.01)* #### Physician **Felony exposure; license revocation** Physicians face felony charges (F4 or F5 depending on the provision), mandatory license revocation, and civil liability for violating abortion restrictions. Physicians who perform abortions in violation of Ohio law face serious consequences. The now-enjoined heartbeat ban carried a fifth-degree felony penalty (6-12 months imprisonment). Violating the 20-week ban or the post-viability ban is a fourth-degree felony (6-18 months). Violating the D&E ban, Down syndrome ban, or medication abortion restrictions is a fourth-degree felony. The D&X (partial-birth) ban carries a second-degree felony (2-8 years). In addition to imprisonment, Ohio law mandates automatic revocation of a physician's medical license for violating the 20-week ban, post-viability ban, or Down syndrome ban. Physicians also face civil liability for compensatory and exemplary damages. > "The state medical board shall revoke a physician's license to practice medicine in this state if the physician violates this section." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.201(F) **Legal analysis** Penalties by provision: R.C. 2919.195 (heartbeat, enjoined): F5. R.C. 2919.201 (20-week): F4. R.C. 2919.17 (post-viability): F4. R.C. 2919.10 (Down syndrome): F4 + mandatory license revocation (R.C. 2919.10(D)). R.C. 2919.15 (D&E): F4. R.C. 2919.151 (D&X): F2. R.C. 2919.123 (mifepristone distribution): F4 (F3 for repeat). R.C. 2919.124 (drug-induced abortion): F4 (F3 for repeat). License revocation: mandatory for violations of R.C. 2919.201(F), 2919.17(G), 2919.10(D). Civil liability: R.C. 2919.201(G), 2919.17(H), 2919.10(E) allow civil actions for compensatory and exemplary damages and attorney fees. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.201(F), Section 2919.201(F), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.201) · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.195(A), Section 2919.195(A), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.195)* **Editor's note.** Because the core heartbeat ban is permanently enjoined and the state concedes its unconstitutionality, physician exposure under R.C. 2919.195 is currently theoretical. #### Prescriber pharmacist **Felony exposure for non-physicians** Non-physician prescribers and pharmacists face felony exposure for distributing abortion medication; the APC prohibition is currently preliminarily enjoined for medication abortion. Under Ohio statutes, non-physician prescribers — such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants — who provide mifepristone could face felony charges (fourth-degree felony, up to 18 months). Pharmacists who dispense abortion medication in violation of the law also face this exposure. However, court orders currently block enforcement of these restrictions against advanced practice clinicians for medication abortion. Pharmacists filling prescriptions for mifepristone from out-of-state telehealth providers face uncertain exposure; Ohio's telehealth ban on medication abortion is also currently blocked by a court order. > "No person shall knowingly give, sell, dispense, administer, or otherwise provide RU-486 (mifepristone) to another for the purpose of inducing an abortion … unless the person … is a physician." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.123(A) **Legal analysis** R.C. 2919.123(A) limits mifepristone distribution to physicians meeting federal requirements; violation is a fourth-degree felony (third-degree for repeat). R.C. 2919.124 similarly limits drug-induced abortion to physicians physically present. R.C. 2919.15(D)(3) expressly exempts 'a pharmacist or other individual who fills a prescription or provides instruments or materials used in violating' the D&E ban. No similar pharmacist exemption exists in the medication-abortion statutes. R.C. 2919.123(D)(3) exempts 'the distribution, provision, or sale of RU-486 (mifepristone) by any legal manufacturer or distributor' that makes a good faith effort to comply with federal law. The preliminary injunctions currently block enforcement of the physician-only restriction against APCs. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.123(A), Section 2919.123(A), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.123)* **Editor's note.** Enforcement against APCs is blocked by preliminary injunction. Final adjudication pending. #### Nurses and staff **Limited exposure; statutory exemption** Clinic staff acting at the direction of a physician are expressly exempt from D&E ban prosecution; exposure under other abortion statutes is theoretically possible but practically unlikely. Under Ohio's D&E ban, clinic staff who act at the direction of the physician are expressly exempt from prosecution. The D&X ban exempts the pregnant woman only. For other abortion restrictions, staff could theoretically face accomplice liability, but Ohio's criminal code provides that a pregnant woman cannot be guilty of complicity in abortion violations against herself, and staff acting within the scope of employment are unlikely to be independently prosecuted. In practice, Ohio has not pursued clinic staff for assisting with abortion procedures. > "An individual who is employed by the person who violates division (B) of this section and who acts at the direction of the person who violates division (B) of this section;" > — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.15(D)(2) **Legal analysis** R.C. 2919.15(D)(2) exempts 'an individual who is employed by the person who violates division (B) of this section and who acts at the direction of the person who violates division (B) of this section' from D&E ban prosecution. R.C. 2919.15(D)(3) exempts pharmacists. No similar staff exemption exists in R.C. 2919.151 (D&X), R.C. 2919.123, R.C. 2919.124, R.C. 2919.195, R.C. 2919.201, or R.C. 2919.17. General accomplice liability under Ohio law (R.C. 2923.03) could theoretically reach staff, but Ohio Const. art. I, § 22 prohibits burdening 'a person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right.' *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.15(D)(2), Section 2919.15(D)(2), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.15)* **Editor's note.** The constitutional protection for 'a person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right' (Art. I, § 22(B)(2)) provides a strong defense for clinic staff, though it has not been tested in criminal proceedings. #### Other helpers **Unclear; constitutional shield** No Ohio statute expressly criminalizes friends, family, or abortion funds for helping someone obtain an abortion; the constitutional amendment protects 'a person or entity that assists.' Ohio law does not specifically criminalize friends, family members, or abortion funds who help a pregnant person obtain an abortion — for example, by driving them to a clinic, providing money, or offering emotional support. The state constitutional amendment explicitly protects any 'person or entity that assists an individual exercising' their reproductive rights. There are no Ohio 'abortion trafficking' laws that criminalize helping someone travel out of state for an abortion (the existing R.C. 2919.14 statute only prohibits experimenting on or selling aborted fetal tissue). However, because Ohio's legal landscape is in flux, helpers should be aware that theoretically, general accomplice or conspiracy laws could be invoked, though this has not occurred in practice. > "The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either: … A person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right." > — Ohio Const. art. I, § 22(B) **Legal analysis** R.C. 2919.14 is limited to experimenting upon or selling the product of human conception and does not reach assisting travel or funding abortion. Ohio has no SB8-style civil bounty law and no statute criminalizing aiding or assisting someone in obtaining a lawful abortion. Ohio Const. art. I, § 22(B)(2) affirmatively protects those who assist. General accomplice liability (R.C. 2923.03) theoretically could be invoked but would face the constitutional defense. There is no known prosecution of helpers for assisting lawful abortion in Ohio. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Const. art. I, § 22(B), Section 22(B), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-constitution/section-1.22) · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.14, Section 2919.14(A), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.14)* **Editor's note.** HB 928 (136th General Assembly) seeks to reclassify abortion trafficking from a misdemeanor to a felony, but at present this only applies to the sale of fetal tissue. ## Aiding & assisting ### Travel assistance **Not criminalized** Ohio has no law criminalizing assistance with out-of-state travel for abortion; the existing 'abortion trafficking' statute addresses only fetal-tissue commerce. It is not a crime in Ohio to help someone travel to another state for an abortion. The state's 'abortion trafficking' law is a misleading name — it only prohibits experimenting on or selling aborted fetal tissue, and has nothing to do with travel. There are no Ohio laws that prevent an employer, friend, family member, or abortion fund from paying for or arranging travel to obtain abortion care. However, a bill pending in the legislature (HB 928) would expand the abortion trafficking statute, though its current text focuses on the sale of fetal remains, not travel assistance. > "No person shall experiment upon or sell the product of human conception which is aborted. Experiment does not include autopsies pursuant to sections 313.13 and 2108.50 of the Revised Code." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.14 **Legal analysis** R.C. 2919.14, despite its title 'Abortion trafficking,' prohibits only experimenting upon or selling 'the product of human conception which is aborted.' It is a first-degree misdemeanor. It does not criminalize travel, travel assistance, or funding of travel. No other Ohio statute reaches interstate travel for abortion. Ohio Const. art. I, § 22(B) protects those who assist. HB 928 (136th GA), introduced in 2025, would amend R.C. 2919.14 and related sections to expand abortion trafficking prohibitions, but as introduced it appears focused on commercial trafficking in fetal tissue, not travel assistance. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.14, Section 2919.14(A), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.14)* **Editor's note.** Editors should flag that the title 'abortion trafficking' in R.C. 2919.14 is misleading — the statute does not reach travel or travel assistance. ### Funding **Not criminalized; constitutional shield** No Ohio law criminalizes paying for an abortion or abortion-related travel; the constitutional amendment protects those who assist. Paying for someone else's abortion, or contributing to an abortion fund, is not a crime in Ohio. The state constitution protects anyone who helps another person exercise their reproductive rights. However, state law prohibits using public funds (state or local government money) to pay for 'nontherapeutic abortions' or for health insurance plans that cover them. Private funding — through abortion funds, personal gifts, or employer benefits — is not restricted by criminal law. > "funds of the state or any political subdivision thereof shall not be expended directly or indirectly to pay the costs, premiums, or charges associated with a policy, contract, or plan if the policy, contract, or plan provides coverage, benefits, or services related to a nontherapeutic abortion." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 9.04(B) **Legal analysis** Ohio has no criminal prohibition on private funding of abortion or related travel. R.C. 9.04 prohibits state and political subdivision funds from being used for 'nontherapeutic abortion' coverage. R.C. 3901.87 prohibits qualified health plans (ACA exchange plans) from covering nontherapeutic abortion. These are funding restrictions, not criminal prohibitions on private assistance. Ohio Const. art. I, § 22(B) protects those who assist. Employer-provided abortion travel benefits are not prohibited by Ohio law. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 9.04(B), Section 9.04(B), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-9.04)* ### Mailing pills **Enjoined telehealth ban; no mailing statute** Ohio has no standalone statute prohibiting mailing abortion pills; the in-person dispensing requirement (effectively a telehealth ban) is preliminarily enjoined. Ohio does not have a specific law that criminalizes sending or receiving abortion pills through the mail. Instead, Ohio's restriction operated through a requirement that the prescribing physician be physically present when the patient takes the first dose — effectively banning telehealth prescribing and mailing. That requirement is currently blocked by a court order. Federal law (FDA regulation of mifepristone) permits mailing under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, but this remains subject to ongoing federal litigation. In practice, Ohio residents can receive abortion medication by mail if prescribed by a provider in a state that allows telehealth prescribing, though the legal picture is unsettled. > "No physician shall personally furnish or otherwise provide an abortion-inducing drug to a pregnant woman unless the physician is physically present at the location where the initial dose of the drug or regimen of drugs is consumed at the time the initial dose is consumed." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.124(B) **Legal analysis** R.C. 2919.124(B) requires physician physical presence when the initial dose is consumed — effectively prohibiting mail-order medication abortion. This provision is preliminarily enjoined (since April 2021). Ohio has no standalone statute making it a crime to mail abortion pills into or within the state. R.C. 2919.123(A) restricts distribution to physicians but exempts 'the legal transport of RU-486 (mifepristone) by any person or entity' (D)(2). At the federal level, the FDA-compliant mifepristone REMS was amended in 2021 to permit mailing; this is subject to ongoing litigation but the Supreme Court preserved access in its June 2024 ruling (FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine). **Conflicting authority.** R.C. 2919.124(B) in-person requirement is enjoined; federal FDA preemption arguments could further limit Ohio's ability to restrict mailing. The legal landscape is unsettled. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.124(B), Section 2919.124(B), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.124)* **Editor's note.** The enjoined in-person dispensing requirement is the primary barrier to mailing pills. If the injunction is dissolved, mailing would be effectively prohibited. ### Providing information **Not criminalized; First Amendment protection** No Ohio law criminalizes providing information about abortion; providing referrals or website links is not illegal. There is no law in Ohio that makes it a crime to give someone information about how to obtain an abortion, including sharing website links, clinic names, or abortion fund contact information. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to share such information. While Ohio's pre-enjoined abortion restrictions did include mandatory state-scripted counseling for patients, those provisions regulated providers, not third parties sharing information. **Legal analysis** Ohio has no statute criminalizing the provision of information about abortion. The mandatory counseling provisions (R.C. 2317.56, now preliminarily enjoined) imposed requirements on providers performing abortions, not on third-party information-sharing. First Amendment protection for truthful information about lawful services is settled under U.S. Supreme Court precedent. No 'aiding and abetting' prosecution for information-sharing is plausible under current Ohio law. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* **Editor's note.** While no criminal law targets information-sharing, abortion opponents have historically used civil actions against those involved in abortion. The scope of such civil exposure for information-providers is untested. ### Civil bounty **No SB8-style bounty law** Ohio has no statute authorizing private civil enforcement of abortion restrictions through bounties; the state does, however, authorize civil wrongful-death actions for certain abortion violations. Unlike Texas, Ohio does not have a law that allows private citizens to sue abortion providers or helpers for money damages — there is no SB8-style 'bounty' system in Ohio. However, Ohio does allow civil lawsuits for wrongful death of an unborn child in limited circumstances. A woman who had an abortion performed in violation of the heartbeat ban (now enjoined) or without receiving required information could sue for wrongful death, with minimum damages of $10,000. The constitutional amendment's protection of those who assist with reproductive decisions likely limits the viability of such suits. > "A woman who meets either or both of the following criteria may file a civil action for the wrongful death of her unborn child: (1) A woman on whom an abortion was performed or induced in violation of division (A) of section 2919.193 or division (A) of section 2919.195 of the Revised Code..." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.199(A) **Legal analysis** R.C. 2919.199 authorizes a wrongful-death civil action by the pregnant woman for violations of the heartbeat ban and informed consent requirements. R.C. 2919.201(G) and 2919.17(H) authorize civil suits by 'any person' for compensatory and exemplary damages for violations of the 20-week or post-viability bans. These are not SB8-style universal bounties — they are civil actions tied to specific violations and typically require injury to the plaintiff. Given the permanent injunction against R.C. 2919.195 and related provisions, civil actions under R.C. 2919.199 are currently unavailable for pre-viability abortions. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.199(A), Section 2919.199(A), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.199)* **Editor's note.** While not SB8-style, the wrongful-death civil action in R.C. 2919.199 represents a private enforcement mechanism. Its viability is limited by the injunction against the underlying criminal provisions. ## Procedural requirements ### Waiting period **24-hour wait; preliminarily enjoined** Ohio's statutory 24-hour waiting period between mandatory in-person counseling and the abortion procedure is preliminarily enjoined as likely unconstitutional. Ohio law still on the books requires a person to receive state-mandated in-person counseling at least 24 hours before having an abortion. In practice, this requirement is not currently being enforced because a state court blocked it in August 2024, finding it likely violates the new constitutional amendment. The actual delay was often much longer than 24 hours because of clinic scheduling and travel logistics. While the injunction remains in effect, people can obtain an abortion in a single visit. **Legal analysis** R.C. 2317.56 imposed a 24-hour waiting period after in-person delivery of state-mandated information. On August 23, 2024, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the waiting period, mandatory counseling, and related provisions in Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost (No. 24 CV 2634). The court found these laws likely violate Ohio Const. art. I, § 22 because they burden the right to abortion without using the least restrictive means. Discovery and dispositive motions are ongoing; the injunction remains in effect. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, Franklin C.P. No. 24 CV 2634 (PI Order Aug. 23, 2024), [ACLU of Ohio](http://www.acluohio.org/cases/preterm-cleveland-et-al-v-yost-et-al-waiting-period-challenge)* **Editor's note.** The injunction is preliminary, not permanent. HB 347 (SHE WINS Act, 2025) seeks to reenact a waiting period; it passed the Ohio House on March 25, 2026 and is pending in the Senate. ### Mandatory counseling **State-scripted; preliminarily enjoined** Ohio's requirement that patients receive state-scripted in-person counseling about pregnancy, abortion risks, and alternatives is preliminarily enjoined. Under Ohio statutes still on the books but not currently enforced, a person seeking abortion must receive in-person counseling that includes state-mandated information about the pregnancy, the health risks of abortion, alternatives like adoption, and other prescribed topics. This counseling must be provided by the physician or a qualified person at least 24 hours before the procedure. A court blocked this requirement in August 2024, finding it likely unconstitutional. The required information included medically contested statements, including information about fetal pain and the possibility of reversing a medication abortion. **Legal analysis** R.C. 2317.56 required disclosure of prescribed information including fetal development, abortion risks, alternatives, and the assertion that medication abortion may be reversible (a claim not supported by evidence-based medicine). The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas preliminarily enjoined these requirements on August 23, 2024, in Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost. The court found the state failed to demonstrate that these requirements use 'the least restrictive means to advance the individual's health in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care' as required by Ohio Const. art. I, § 22(B). *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, Franklin C.P. No. 24 CV 2634 (PI Order Aug. 23, 2024), [ACLU of Ohio](http://www.acluohio.org/cases/preterm-cleveland-et-al-v-yost-et-al-waiting-period-challenge)* **Editor's note.** The mandatory counseling included information about 'abortion pill reversal,' a claim not supported by evidence-based medicine. ### Ultrasound requirement **No standalone ultrasound mandate** Ohio does not have a standalone law requiring an ultrasound before an abortion; the heartbeat ban required testing for fetal cardiac activity, which is now enjoined. Unlike some other states, Ohio does not have a law that requires a person seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound or to view the ultrasound image. The now-enjoined heartbeat ban required the provider to test for fetal cardiac activity, which is typically done via ultrasound, but did not require the patient to view or hear anything. Since that law is permanently blocked, there is currently no ultrasound requirement in Ohio. **Legal analysis** Ohio has no statute generally requiring an ultrasound before abortion. The heartbeat ban (R.C. 2919.192-.195) required the provider to test for a fetal heartbeat, which typically involves ultrasound, but did not require the image to be displayed or described to the patient. That law is permanently enjoined. R.C. 2317.56 (mandatory counseling, now preliminarily enjoined) required the provider to offer the patient the opportunity to view ultrasound images if they were taken, but did not mandate taking them. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### In person visits **One visit currently; two on books** While the waiting period and mandatory in-person counseling are enjoined, patients can obtain an abortion in a single visit; on the books, the law required two in-person visits. Currently, because the waiting period and mandatory counseling are blocked by a court order, a person can typically obtain an abortion in a single visit to a clinic. If the injunction were lifted, Ohio law would require two in-person visits: one for state-mandated counseling and a second at least 24 hours later for the procedure. For medication abortion, the (also-enjoined) in-person dispensing requirement would mean the first dose must be taken with the physician present. **Legal analysis** Under the enjoined statutory framework, R.C. 2317.56 required in-person delivery of state-mandated information at least 24 hours before the abortion procedure, forcing at least two in-person visits. R.C. 2919.124(B) (enjoined) required the physician to be physically present when the initial dose of abortion medication is consumed. With both sets of requirements currently enjoined, the effective number of compelled in-person visits is one in practice, though the statutes on the books require two. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, Franklin C.P. No. 24 CV 2634 (PI Order Aug. 23, 2024), [ACLU of Ohio](http://www.acluohio.org/cases/preterm-cleveland-et-al-v-yost-et-al-waiting-period-challenge)* **Editor's note.** The number of required visits depends on which injunctions survive final adjudication. ## Minors ### Parental involvement **Consent of one parent** Ohio requires the informed written consent of one parent, guardian, or custodian for an unemancipated minor's abortion, with a judicial bypass available. In Ohio, if a person under 18 is not married, not in the military, not self-supporting, and not otherwise independent (legally 'unemancipated'), they must get the written consent of one parent, guardian, or legal custodian before having an abortion. Emancipated minors can consent on their own. There is an exception for medical emergencies where delay would pose a serious risk to the minor's life or physical health. The law makes it a first-degree misdemeanor (fourth-degree felony for repeat offenses) for a provider to knowingly perform an abortion on a minor without obtaining proper consent. > "No person shall knowingly perform or induce an abortion upon a pregnant minor unless one of the following is the case: (1) The attending physician has secured the informed written consent of the minor and one parent, guardian, or custodian;" > — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.121(B)(1) **Legal analysis** R.C. 2919.121(B) requires that for an unemancipated pregnant minor, the attending physician must secure 'the informed written consent of the minor and one parent, guardian, or custodian.' Alternatives: the minor is emancipated (married, military, self-subsisting, or otherwise independent — 2919.121(A), (B)(2)); the minor has obtained a court order authorizing consent (B)(3); or the court has given judicial consent (B)(4). An affirmative defense exists for medical emergencies creating 'an immediate threat of serious risk to the life or physical health of the minor' (D). Penalties: first-degree misdemeanor for first offense, fourth-degree felony for repeat (E). Civil liability to the minor and her parents for compensatory and exemplary damages (F). This statute has not been challenged under the Reproductive Freedom Amendment and remains in effect. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.121(B)(1), Section 2919.121(B)(1), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.121)* **Editor's note.** This statute predates the Reproductive Freedom Amendment and has not been challenged under it. ### Judicial bypass **Available; maturity or best interests** A minor may petition a juvenile court to bypass parental consent; the court must grant the petition if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that she is mature and informed or that the abortion is in her best interests. A pregnant minor who does not want to or cannot get a parent's consent can go to court instead. The judicial bypass process allows her to file a petition in juvenile court. The court must hold a hearing within five days and issue a decision within 24 hours after the hearing. The court grants the petition if it finds by 'clear and convincing evidence' either that the minor is mature and well-informed enough to make the decision herself, or that having the abortion is in her best interests. The process is confidential, free of filing fees or court costs, and the minor has the right to a court-appointed attorney. She can appeal a denial to the court of appeals on an expedited basis. > "If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is sufficiently mature and well enough informed to decide intelligently whether to have an abortion, the court shall grant the petition and permit the minor to consent to the abortion. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the abortion is in the best interests of the minor, the court shall give judicial consent to the abortion." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.121(C)(3) **Legal analysis** R.C. 2919.121(C) establishes the judicial bypass procedure. The minor or her next friend files in the juvenile court of her county of residence or any bordering county. The court must assist in preparing the petition. A hearing on the merits must be held within five business days of filing. The court must appoint counsel at least 24 hours before the hearing and appoint a guardian ad litem. The court must find by clear and convincing evidence either that the minor 'is sufficiently mature and well enough informed to decide intelligently whether to have an abortion' or that 'the abortion is in the best interests of the minor.' The decision must be issued within 24 hours after the hearing. Appeal is available to the court of appeals with an expedited timeline (record completed and appeal perfected within four days). All proceedings are confidential and records are not public. No filing fees or court costs are assessed. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.121(C)(3), Section 2919.121(C)(3), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.121)* ## Paternal spousal rights ### Consent or notice laws **No spousal consent law** Ohio has no statute requiring spousal or paternal consent or notice before an abortion; any such law would be unconstitutional under Planned Parenthood v. Danforth. Ohio does not require a married person to get their spouse's consent or even to notify their spouse before having an abortion. There is no law giving the father of the fetus any right to consent to or be notified about an abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that spousal consent requirements are unconstitutional (Planned Parenthood v. Danforth), and this remains binding precedent under the federal constitution. Although the Dobbs decision opened some previously settled questions, no Ohio law currently attempts to give the father veto power over abortion. **Legal analysis** No Ohio statute requires spousal or paternal consent or notice before abortion. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), held that spousal consent requirements are unconstitutional. This holding was based on the federal constitutional right to abortion recognized in Roe v. Wade, which Dobbs overruled. However, Danforth's specific holding on spousal consent has not been formally revisited by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Ohio, even if Danforth's federal constitutional holding were questioned post-Dobbs, Ohio Const. art. I, § 22 provides an independent state constitutional basis for striking down any spousal consent requirement. The father has no statutory right to participate in the abortion decision under current Ohio law. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), Syllabus, [Justia](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/52)* **Editor's note.** Although Danforth's federal constitutional basis (Roe) has been overruled, Ohio Const. art. I, § 22 provides independent protection. No Ohio spousal consent law exists to test this question. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Enforceability **Not at issue; no such law exists** Because Ohio has no spousal or paternal consent or notice law, the question of enforceability under Danforth and Casey does not arise. Ohio simply does not have a law requiring a spouse's or the father's consent or notification before an abortion, so there is nothing to enforce. Even if the Ohio legislature were to pass such a law, it would face challenge under Ohio's state constitutional amendment protecting reproductive freedom. **Legal analysis** Ohio has no spousal or paternal consent or notice statute. Under Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), spousal notification requirements were held to impose an undue burden. While Dobbs overruled Casey's undue burden standard, Ohio Const. art. I, § 22 independently protects reproductive autonomy. Any future spousal consent law would be preemptively unconstitutional under the Ohio Constitution. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### Other paternal rights **Father has no statutory role** The father has no statutory right regarding the abortion decision; the wrongful-death civil action for an unborn child is available to the mother only under R.C. 2919.199. Under Ohio law, the father of the fetus has no legal role in the abortion decision — no right to consent, no right to notice, and no right to veto. The civil wrongful-death action for an unborn child created by R.C. 2919.199 is available only to the pregnant woman herself, not to the father. Outside the abortion context, Ohio recognizes a general civil wrongful death action for a viable fetus (Werling v. Sandy, 1985), but this does not extend to lawful abortions. > "A woman who meets either or both of the following criteria may file a civil action for the wrongful death of her unborn child..." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.199(A) **Legal analysis** R.C. 2919.199 limits the wrongful-death civil action for certain abortion violations to the pregnant woman. R.C. 2919.201(G) and 2919.17(H) allow 'any person, or the representative of the estate of any person, who sustains injury, death, or loss' to sue, which theoretically could include a father, but the injury must be directly sustained. The Ohio Supreme Court in Werling v. Sandy, 17 Ohio St. 3d 45 (1985), recognized a wrongful-death action for a viable fetus under R.C. 2125.01, but this applies to negligent injury by third parties, not lawful abortion. No Ohio court has recognized a father's right to enjoin an abortion or sue for wrongful death arising from a lawful abortion. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.199(A), Section 2919.199(A), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.199) · Werling v. Sandy, 17 Ohio St. 3d 45 (1985), Syllabus, [CaseMine / Ohio Supreme Court](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914c2cdadd7b049347c21d5)* ## Fetal personhood ### Fetal homicide law **Fetal homicide from fertilization** Ohio's homicide statutes reach the 'unlawful termination of another's pregnancy' from fertilization; the pregnant woman and her consenting physician are expressly carved out. Ohio law treats the killing of an unborn child at any stage of pregnancy — from fertilization onward — as homicide when done by someone other than the pregnant woman or her consenting physician. A third party who causes the death of a fetus can be charged with aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, or other homicide offenses depending on the circumstances. The law explicitly says this does not apply to a pregnant woman for her own acts during pregnancy, nor to a physician performing an abortion with the pregnant woman's consent. This creates a tension: the law treats the fetus as a homicide victim whose death can be murder, but simultaneously exempts the mother and her doctor from this framework. > "'Unlawful termination of another's pregnancy' means causing the death of an unborn member of the species homo sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another, as a result of injuries inflicted during the period that begins with fertilization and that continues unless and until live birth occurs." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.09(A) **Legal analysis** R.C. 2903.01-.08 incorporate 'unlawful termination of another's pregnancy' as an element of homicide. R.C. 2903.09(A) defines this as 'causing the death of an unborn member of the species homo sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another, as a result of injuries inflicted during the period that begins with fertilization and that continues unless and until live birth occurs.' R.C. 2903.09(C)(1) carves out the pregnant woman and her consenting physician: the definition does not apply 'in a manner so that the offense prohibits or is construed as prohibiting any pregnant woman or her physician from performing an abortion with the actual consent of the pregnant woman.' However, an abortion that 'violates the conditions' described may be punished under the homicide statutes. R.C. 2903.09(C)(2) further shields the pregnant woman from prosecution for acts during pregnancy that cause fetal death or injury. R.C. 2901.01(B)(1)(a)(ii) includes 'an unborn human who is viable' in the definition of 'person' for criminal offenses in Title XXIX, but R.C. 2901.01(B)(2) contains the same physician-consent and pregnant-woman carve-outs. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.09(A), Section 2903.09(A), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2903.09) · Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.09(C)(1), Section 2903.09(C)(1), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2903.09)* ### Wrongful death **Action lies for viable fetus** The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized a wrongful-death claim for a viable fetus negligently injured in utero (Werling v. Sandy); an abortion-specific wrongful-death action also exists under R.C. 2919.199. Ohio law allows a civil wrongful-death lawsuit when a viable fetus is killed through negligence or wrongful conduct. This was established by the Ohio Supreme Court in the 1985 case Werling v. Sandy. The legal standard requires that the fetus be 'viable' — meaning it could survive outside the womb. Separately, Ohio law creates a specific wrongful-death action for certain abortion violations (R.C. 2919.199), available to the pregnant woman when an abortion is performed in violation of the heartbeat ban (now enjoined) or without required consent procedures. > "A viable fetus which is negligently injured en ventre sa mere and subsequently stillborn may be the basis for a wrongful death action pursuant to R.C. 2125.01." > — Werling v. Sandy, 17 Ohio St. 3d 45, 476 N.E.2d 1053 (Ohio 1985) **Legal analysis** Werling v. Sandy, 17 Ohio St. 3d 45 (1985), held that a viable fetus negligently injured en ventre sa mere and subsequently stillborn may be the basis for a wrongful death action under R.C. 2125.01. The court explicitly limited this to viable fetuses. R.C. 2919.199 creates a separate abortion-specific wrongful death action for violations of the heartbeat ban and informed consent requirements, available to the pregnant woman. R.C. 2919.13(D) also provides a wrongful-death civil action for abortion manslaughter (killing a child born alive after attempted abortion). *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Werling v. Sandy, 17 Ohio St. 3d 45, 476 N.E.2d 1053 (Ohio 1985), Syllabus, [CaseMine](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914c2cdadd7b049347c21d5)* **Editor's note.** Werling requires viability; non-viable fetuses are not covered by the general wrongful-death statute under this precedent. Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Personhood definition **Fetal personhood language present** Ohio law defines 'unborn child' as a human organism from fertilization, 'person' to include a viable unborn human for criminal offenses, and 'unlawful termination of pregnancy' from fertilization. Ohio law contains extensive language treating the unborn as persons. The term 'unborn child' is defined as 'an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth' for post-viability abortion laws. For criminal offenses in Title XXIX, 'person' includes 'an unborn human who is viable.' The fetal homicide law defines 'unlawful termination of another's pregnancy' as causing the death of an unborn human from fertilization. A pending bill (HB 370, the Ohio Prenatal Equal Protection Act) would go further, granting full legal personhood from fertilization. These definitions coexist with abortion rights protected by the state constitution, creating significant internal legal tension. > "'Unborn child' means an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.16(L) **Legal analysis** R.C. 2919.16(L): 'Unborn child means an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth.' R.C. 2901.01(B)(1)(a)(ii): for Title XXIX criminal offenses, 'person includes … an unborn human who is viable,' with 'unborn human' meaning 'an individual organism of the species Homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth.' R.C. 2903.09(A): 'unlawful termination of another's pregnancy' covers from fertilization. These personhood definitions are limited by statutory carve-outs (R.C. 2901.01(B)(2), 2903.09(C)) and by the constitutional supremacy of Ohio Const. art. I, § 22. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.16(L), Section 2919.16(L), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.16) · Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.01(B)(1)(a), Section 2901.01(B)(1)(a)(ii), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2901.01)* ### Contradictions analysis Ohio law embodies a profound and explicit internal contradiction on fetal personhood. On one hand, the Revised Code treats the unborn as the equivalent of a person for purposes of homicide (from fertilization, R.C. 2903.09), defines 'unborn child' as a human organism from fertilization (R.C. 2919.16(L)), and defines 'person' for criminal law purposes to include a viable unborn human (R.C. 2901.01(B)(1)(a)(ii)). On the other hand, the very same code sections contain express carve-outs that exempt the pregnant woman and her consenting physician from these definitions: R.C. 2903.09(C)(1) states that the fetal homicide definition shall not be applied to prohibit 'any pregnant woman or her physician from performing an abortion with the actual consent of the pregnant woman.' R.C. 2901.01(B)(2) contains an even more detailed parallel carve-out. The abortion chapter itself simultaneously defines abortion to include 'the pregnant woman herself' (R.C. 2919.11) while exempting her from prosecution under most specific abortion crimes. The practical result is a legal system that treats the fetus as a full homicide victim when harmed by a third party but permits its termination when done by the mother via her physician — and now, constitutionally protects that decision. The Ohio Constitution's Reproductive Freedom Amendment (Art. I, § 22) adds the final layer: it guarantees the right to abortion up to viability and protects post-viability abortion to safeguard the patient's life or health. This amendment is supreme over conflicting statutes, meaning the personhood statutes cannot be enforced to restrict abortion within the constitutional bounds. The result is a three-tier system: the fetus is a 'person' when a stranger harms it; the fetus is a 'patient' whose termination is regulated but not a crime when a physician and consenting patient act within constitutional limits; and the pregnant woman is neither criminal nor victim but the rights-holder at the center of the constitutional framework. This is not a contradiction that can be resolved by statutory interpretation — it is a structural feature of Ohio law. ## Telehealth & interstate questions ### Telehealth prescribing **Telehealth ban preliminarily enjoined** Ohio's law requiring the physician to be physically present when medication abortion drugs are consumed is preliminarily enjoined; telehealth prescribing is currently permitted. Ohio law on the books says that when a physician provides abortion medication, the physician must be physically in the room when the patient takes the first dose. This effectively bans prescribing abortion medication by telehealth. However, this law has been blocked by a court since April 2021 and cannot currently be enforced. This means that, for now, abortion medication can be prescribed by telehealth to patients in Ohio. A separate preliminary injunction also blocks Ohio from restricting which clinicians can prescribe — so both physicians and advanced practice clinicians can currently use telehealth for medication abortion. > "No physician shall personally furnish or otherwise provide an abortion-inducing drug to a pregnant woman unless the physician is physically present at the location where the initial dose of the drug or regimen of drugs is consumed at the time the initial dose is consumed." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.124(B) **Legal analysis** R.C. 2919.124(B) requires physician physical presence at the time of initial dose consumption — a de facto telehealth ban. This provision has been preliminarily enjoined since April 20, 2021, in Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region v. Ohio Dept. of Health. The injunction was affirmed on appeal (2026-Ohio-639). Additional preliminary injunctions (August 2024, July 2025) block the physician-only restriction for APC prescribing. The combined effect is that both physicians and APCs may currently prescribe medication abortion via telehealth to patients in Ohio. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.124(B), Section 2919.124(B), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.124) · Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region v. Ohio Dept. of Health, 2026-Ohio-639 (1st Dist.), [Supreme Court of Ohio / Ohio First District Court of Appeals](https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/1/2026/2026-Ohio-639.pdf)* **Editor's note.** The preliminary injunction is interlocutory. Final adjudication and any appeal could alter the status of telehealth prescribing. ### Out of state travel **Travel is lawful** Ohio residents may lawfully travel out of state for abortion; no Ohio statute restricts or penalizes such travel. There is nothing in Ohio law that prevents a person from traveling to another state to have an abortion. Ohio has no law that tries to stop its residents from crossing state lines to access care that may be restricted at different gestational ages in Ohio. The constitutional right to travel between states is protected by the U.S. Constitution. **Legal analysis** No Ohio statute restricts, regulates, or penalizes interstate travel for abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized a constitutional right to interstate travel. Ohio Const. art. I, § 22 protects the right to make reproductive decisions, which would encompass the decision to travel. No Ohio statute reaches travel by the pregnant person or those assisting her. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### Shield or hostile laws **No shield law; no cross-border targeting** Ohio has not enacted a shield law protecting providers or patients from out-of-state abortion investigations; nor does Ohio currently have laws targeting cross-border abortion activity. Ohio is not a 'shield state.' Unlike states such as New York and California, Ohio has not passed a law that protects abortion providers or patients from investigations, subpoenas, or extradition attempts by other states that have banned abortion. At the same time, Ohio has not passed laws that try to reach across state lines to punish its residents for obtaining abortions elsewhere or to penalize out-of-state providers who serve Ohio patients. Ohio's position is essentially neutral on the interstate abortion conflict. **Legal analysis** Ohio has enacted no shield law protecting in-state providers who serve out-of-state patients, or protecting Ohio patients who travel for care from other states' legal processes. Ohio has also not enacted laws targeting out-of-state conduct, such as laws criminalizing travel for abortion or authorizing civil suits against out-of-state providers. Compare Texas S.B. 8 and Idaho's 'abortion trafficking' law. Ohio Const. art. I, § 22 protects reproductive decisions made by Ohioans, but its extraterritorial application is untested. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* **Editor's note.** As interstate abortion conflicts escalate, Ohio's lack of both shield and hostile laws leaves providers and patients in a legal gray zone with respect to other states' attempts to reach into Ohio. ## Funding and insurance ### Medicaid **Hyde-only coverage** Ohio Medicaid covers abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest reported to law enforcement — consistent with the federal Hyde Amendment. Ohio's Medicaid program covers abortion only in three narrow circumstances: when the pregnancy endangers the pregnant person's life, or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest that has been reported to law enforcement. This matches the minimum required by the federal Hyde Amendment. Ohio does not use state funds to expand coverage beyond these categories. The requirement to report rape or incest to law enforcement is a significant barrier — not all survivors want or are able to make a police report. > "'Nontherapeutic abortion' means an abortion that is performed or induced when the life of the mother would not be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or when the pregnancy of the mother was not the result of rape or incest reported to a law enforcement agency." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 9.04(A)(1) **Legal analysis** R.C. 9.04 defines 'nontherapeutic abortion' as one where 'the life of the mother would not be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or when the pregnancy of the mother was not the result of rape or incest reported to a law enforcement agency.' State funds may not be used for nontherapeutic abortion. This aligns with the federal Hyde Amendment, which restricts federal Medicaid funding to cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest. Ohio has chosen not to use state-only funds to expand coverage. The law-enforcement-reporting requirement is a state-imposed condition beyond the federal minimum. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 9.04(A)(1), Section 9.04(A)(1), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-9.04)* ### Private insurance **Restricted; rider required** Ohio prohibits state and local government employee health plans from covering 'nontherapeutic abortion' unless purchased through an individually paid rider. Ohio law bans state and local government health insurance plans from covering abortion beyond the Hyde categories (life endangerment, rape, incest). State and local employees who want abortion coverage must purchase a separate, additional insurance rider and pay the full cost themselves, including all administrative expenses. For private-sector insurance plans not involving government funds, there is no similar statutory restriction, though many private plans in Ohio do not cover abortion as a matter of contract or employer policy. > "funds of the state or any political subdivision thereof shall not be expended directly or indirectly to pay the costs, premiums, or charges associated with a policy, contract, or plan if the policy, contract, or plan provides coverage, benefits, or services related to a nontherapeutic abortion." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 9.04(B) **Legal analysis** R.C. 9.04(B) prohibits expenditure of state or political-subdivision funds for health plans covering nontherapeutic abortion. R.C. 9.04(C) permits coverage through an individually paid rider covering all costs including administrative expenses. R.C. 4117.10(D) provides that these restrictions prevail over conflicting collective bargaining agreements. For private-sector plans not involving government funds, no Ohio statute restricts abortion coverage, though the ACA does not require abortion coverage. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 9.04(B), Section 9.04(B), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-9.04)* ### Exchange plans **ACA plans barred from abortion coverage** Ohio prohibits qualified health plans sold on the ACA exchange from covering nontherapeutic abortion. Health insurance plans sold on Ohio's Affordable Care Act marketplace (HealthCare.gov) are prohibited by state law from covering abortion except in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest. This means people who buy insurance through the exchange cannot use their plan to pay for abortion care in most circumstances. > "No qualified health plan shall provide coverage for a nontherapeutic abortion." > — Ohio Rev. Code § 3901.87(A) **Legal analysis** R.C. 3901.87(A) provides: 'No qualified health plan shall provide coverage for a nontherapeutic abortion.' 'Qualified health plan' is defined by reference to 42 U.S.C. 18021 (ACA exchange plans). 'Nontherapeutic abortion' has the same meaning as in R.C. 9.04 — excluding life endangerment, rape, and incest reported to law enforcement. This is a state-level restriction; federal law permits but does not require states to restrict exchange plan abortion coverage. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 3901.87(A), Section 3901.87(A), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-3901.87)* ### State funding of providers **Defunds providers** Ohio restricts state and local funding for entities that provide abortions; a 2025 bill would further block Medicaid funding to abortion providers for any services. Ohio has long had a policy of restricting public funds from going to abortion providers. State law prohibits public facilities from being used for nontherapeutic abortions and restricts state family-planning funds from going to entities that perform or promote abortion. A bill introduced in 2025 seeks to go further by blocking all Medicaid funding to organizations that provide abortions, even for non-abortion services like contraception, cancer screenings, and STI testing. **Legal analysis** R.C. 9.04 restricts state and local funds from being used for nontherapeutic abortion benefits. Ohio has historically restricted state family-planning funds (separate from Medicaid) from going to abortion providers. Ohio participates in the federal Title X program under rules that restrict abortion-related activities. A 2025 bill (HB 928 and related legislation) would further restrict state funding to abortion providers. Whether these funding restrictions survive challenge under Ohio Const. art. I, § 22 — which prohibits 'indirectly' burdening reproductive decisions — is an open question. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Ohio Rev. Code § 9.04, Section 9.04(B), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-9.04)* **Editor's note.** The constitutionality of defunding provisions under Ohio Const. art. I, § 22's prohibition on 'indirectly' burdening reproductive decisions has not been adjudicated. ## Penalties | Actor | Offense | Penalty | Verification | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Physician — heartbeat ban violation (R.C. 2919.195) | Performing or inducing an abortion after detection of fetal heartbeat | Fifth-degree felony; 6-12 months imprisonment, $2,500 fine. Enjoined. | Verified at source | | Physician — 20-week post-fertilization ban (R.C. 2919.201) | Terminating or attempting to terminate a human pregnancy of a pain-capable unborn child (≥20 weeks post-fertilization) | Fourth-degree felony; 6-18 months imprisonment, $5,000 fine; mandatory license revocation | Verified at source | | Physician — post-viability ban (R.C. 2919.17) | Terminating or attempting to terminate a human pregnancy after viability | Fourth-degree felony; 6-18 months imprisonment, $5,000 fine; mandatory license revocation | Verified at source | | Physician — D and E / dismemberment feticide (R.C. 2919.15) | Knowingly performing or attempting dismemberment abortion | Fourth-degree felony; 6-18 months imprisonment, $5,000 fine | Verified at source | | Physician — D and X / partial birth feticide (R.C. 2919.151) | Knowingly performing partial birth procedure | Second-degree felony; 2-8 years imprisonment, $15,000 fine | Verified at source | | Physician — Down syndrome ban (R.C. 2919.10) | Purposely performing abortion with knowledge it is sought because of Down syndrome | Fourth-degree felony; mandatory license revocation; civil liability for compensatory and exemplary damages | Verified at source | | Any person — unlawful distribution of mifepristone (R.C. 2919.123) | Knowingly providing mifepristone for abortion without meeting physician and federal-law requirements | Fourth-degree felony (first offense); third-degree felony (repeat); professional license sanctions | Verified at source | | Physician — drug-induced abortion violation (R.C. 2919.124) | Furnishing abortion-inducing drug without being physically present | Fourth-degree felony (first offense); third-degree felony (repeat). Enjoined. | Verified at source | | Provider — performing abortion on minor without consent (R.C. 2919.121) | Knowingly performing or inducing abortion on unemancipated minor without required consent | First-degree misdemeanor (first offense); fourth-degree felony (repeat); civil liability | Verified at source | | Any person — abortion manslaughter (R.C. 2919.13) | Purposely taking life of child born alive after attempted abortion; failing to provide medical care to infant born alive | First-degree felony; 3-11 years imprisonment (presumptive) to life | Verified at source | ## Recent changes - **June 24, 2022** — U.S. Supreme Court issues Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, overruling Roe v. Wade. Ohio's heartbeat ban (S.B. 23), previously enjoined, becomes effective as the federal injunction is dissolved. *Sources — Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 597 U.S. 215 (2022), [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf)* - **September 14, 2022** — Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas grants temporary restraining order blocking the heartbeat ban for 14 days, later extended. *Sources — Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, Hamilton C.P. No. A-2203203 (TRO Sept. 14, 2022), [ACLU of Ohio](http://www.acluohio.org/cases/preterm-cleveland-et-al-v-yost-et-al)* - **October 12, 2022** — Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas issues preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the heartbeat ban under the Ohio Constitution. *Sources — Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, Hamilton C.P. No. A-2203203 (PI Order Oct. 12, 2022), [ACLU of Ohio](http://www.acluohio.org/cases/preterm-cleveland-et-al-v-yost-et-al)* - **November 7, 2023** — Ohio voters approve Issue 1 (56.8% to 43.2%), adding the Reproductive Freedom Amendment as Article I, Section 22 of the Ohio Constitution. *Sources — Ohio Const. art. I, § 22, Section 22(A), [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-constitution/section-1.22)* - **December 7, 2023** — Issue 1 takes effect as Article I, Section 22 of the Ohio Constitution. *Sources — Ohio Const. art. I, § 22, Header, [Ohio Legislative Service Commission / codes.ohio.gov](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-constitution/section-1.22)* - **December 15, 2023** — Ohio Supreme Court dismisses the state's appeal of the preliminary injunction due to the change in law — the passage of Issue 1. *Sources — Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, 2023-Ohio-4570, ¶1, [Supreme Court of Ohio](https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2023/2023-Ohio-4570.pdf)* - **March 29, 2024** — ACLU and Planned Parenthood file Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost (waiting period challenge) in Franklin County, challenging the 24-hour waiting period under the new constitutional amendment. *Sources — Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, Franklin C.P. No. 24 CV 2634, [ACLU of Ohio](http://www.acluohio.org/cases/preterm-cleveland-et-al-v-yost-et-al-waiting-period-challenge)* - **August 23, 2024** — Franklin County Court of Common Pleas preliminarily enjoins Ohio's 24-hour waiting period and mandatory in-person counseling as likely unconstitutional. *Sources — Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, Franklin C.P. No. 24 CV 2634 (PI Order Aug. 23, 2024), [ACLU of Ohio](http://www.acluohio.org/cases/preterm-cleveland-et-al-v-yost-et-al-waiting-period-challenge)* - **August 29, 2024** — Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas grants second preliminary injunction blocking physician-only restriction for APCs and outdated FDA-labeling requirement for medication abortion. *Sources — Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region v. Ohio Dept. of Health (2d PI Order Aug. 29, 2024), [ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/cases/planned-parenthood-southwest-ohio-region-et-al-v-ohio-department-of-health-et-al)* - **October 24, 2024** — Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas permanently strikes down Ohio's six-week heartbeat ban as unconstitutional under Article I, Section 22. *Sources — Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, Hamilton C.P. No. A-2203203 (Oct. 24, 2024), [ACLU of Ohio](http://www.acluohio.org/cases/preterm-cleveland-et-al-v-yost-et-al)* - **July 8, 2025** — Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas grants third preliminary injunction blocking further provisions that could punish APCs for providing medication abortion. *Sources — Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region v. Ohio Dept. of Health (3d PI Order July 8, 2025), [ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/cases/planned-parenthood-southwest-ohio-region-et-al-v-ohio-department-of-health-et-al)* - **January 7, 2026** — Ohio First District Court of Appeals affirms the permanent injunction of the heartbeat ban but reverses and remands the injunction as to ancillary S.B. 23 provisions (Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, 2026-Ohio-23). *Sources — Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, 2026-Ohio-23 (1st Dist.), ¶3, [Ohio First District Court of Appeals](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/ohio-coa-abortion-injunction-opinion.pdf)* - **March 25, 2026** — Ohio House of Representatives passes HB 347 (SHE WINS Act), which would reinstate a 24-hour waiting period for abortion. The bill moves to the Ohio Senate. *Sources — Ohio H.B. 347 (136th General Assembly), [Ohio Legislature / LegiScan](https://legiscan.com/OH/bill/HB347/2025)* ## Pending changes ### Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost (waiting period challenge — Franklin C.P. No. 24 CV 2634) (Litigation) **Status.** Preliminary injunction in effect since August 23, 2024; discovery ongoing; dispositive motion briefing to conclude by April 17, 2026. If the court grants a permanent injunction, Ohio's 24-hour waiting period and mandatory counseling will be permanently struck down under the Reproductive Freedom Amendment. If the injunction is dissolved, these requirements would be reinstated. *Sources — Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, Franklin C.P. No. 24 CV 2634, [ACLU of Ohio](http://www.acluohio.org/cases/preterm-cleveland-et-al-v-yost-et-al-waiting-period-challenge)* ### Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region v. Ohio Dept. of Health (medication abortion restrictions) (Litigation) **Status.** Multiple preliminary injunctions in effect (2021, 2024, 2025); case proceeding on the merits in Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. If permanent injunctions are granted, APCs will be permanently authorized to provide medication abortion, telehealth prescribing will remain available, and the FDA-labeling restriction will be permanently struck down. *Sources — Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region v. Ohio Dept. of Health, [ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/cases/planned-parenthood-southwest-ohio-region-et-al-v-ohio-department-of-health-et-al)* ### Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost (ancillary S.B. 23 provisions — on remand) (Litigation) **Status.** On remand following First District Court of Appeals decision (2026-Ohio-23, Jan. 7, 2026); trial court to reconsider which ancillary S.B. 23 provisions may be enjoined. The trial court will determine the constitutionality of ancillary provisions including reporting requirements, informed consent provisions, and enforcement mechanisms. *Sources — Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, 2026-Ohio-23 (1st Dist.), ¶3, [Ohio First District Court of Appeals](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/ohio-coa-abortion-injunction-opinion.pdf)* ### Ohio House Bill 347 — SHE WINS Act (136th General Assembly) (Legislation) **Status.** Passed Ohio House (March 25, 2026); pending in Ohio Senate. Would reinstate a 24-hour waiting period for abortion, requiring an in-person meeting at least 24 hours before the procedure. Would likely face immediate constitutional challenge. *Sources — Ohio H.B. 347 (136th General Assembly), [LegiScan / Ohio Legislature](https://legiscan.com/OH/bill/HB347/2025)* ### Ohio House Bill 370 — Ohio Prenatal Equal Protection Act (136th General Assembly) (Legislation) **Status.** Referred to committee; not yet passed either chamber. Would define 'preborn person' from fertilization and potentially criminalize abortion as homicide. Would directly conflict with Ohio Const. art. I, § 22. *Sources — Ohio H.B. 370 (136th General Assembly), [Ohio Legislature](https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/136/hb370)* ### Ohio House Bill 928 — Abortion trafficking expansion (136th General Assembly) (Legislation) **Status.** Passed Ohio House; pending in Ohio Senate. Would reclassify abortion trafficking from a first-degree misdemeanor to a third-degree felony and expand its scope. Focused on commercial trafficking in fetal tissue. *Sources — Ohio H.B. 928 (136th General Assembly), [Ohio Legislature / BillTrack50](https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/2006386)* ### Ohio House Bill 128 — Reproductive Care Act (136th General Assembly) (Legislation) **Status.** Referred to House Health Committee; unlikely to pass Republican-controlled legislature. Would repeal existing abortion restrictions and align state law with the Reproductive Freedom Amendment. *Sources — Ohio H.B. 128 (136th General Assembly), [LegiScan / Ohio Legislature](https://legiscan.com/OH/bill/HB128/2025)* ## Key authorities - **Ohio Reproductive Freedom Amendment** — Ohio Const. art. I, § 22 _(Constitution)_ · [codes.ohio.gov/ohio-constitution/section-1.22](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-constitution/section-1.22) The supreme law governing abortion in Ohio; adopted November 2023, self-executing, protects abortion to viability and post-viability to protect life or health. - **Heartbeat ban (permanently enjoined)** — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.195 _(Statute)_ · [codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.195](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.195) The 2019 six-week abortion ban; permanently enjoined October 2024 as unconstitutional under the Reproductive Freedom Amendment. - **20-week post-fertilization ban** — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.201 _(Statute)_ · [codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.201](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.201) Bans abortion at 20 weeks post-fertilization with life/health exceptions; on the books but not separately adjudicated under the new constitutional amendment. - **Post-viability abortion ban** — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.17 _(Statute)_ · [codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.17](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.17) Bans abortion after viability with life/health exceptions; contains rebuttable presumption of viability at 24 weeks gestational age. - **Abortion definition** — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.11 _(Statute)_ · [codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.11](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.11) Defines abortion to include the pregnant woman herself; the foundational definition determining the scope of the regulatory framework. - **Pregnant woman immunity** — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.198 _(Statute)_ · [codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.198](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.198) Expressly exempts the pregnant woman from criminal and civil liability for heartbeat-ban violations. - **Fetal homicide definition** — Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.09 _(Statute)_ · [codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2903.09](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2903.09) Defines 'unlawful termination of pregnancy' from fertilization for homicide purposes, with carve-outs for the pregnant woman and her physician. - **Medication abortion restrictions** — Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2919.123, 2919.124 _(Statute)_ · [codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.123](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.123) Restrict mifepristone to physicians and require in-person dispensing; partially or fully preliminarily enjoined. - **D and E and D and X method bans** — Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2919.15, 2919.151 _(Statute)_ · [codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.15](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.15) Ban dismemberment abortion and partial-birth feticide with mother and staff exemptions. - **Down syndrome abortion ban** — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.10 _(Statute)_ · [codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.10](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.10) Bans abortion sought because of Down syndrome diagnosis; upheld by federal Sixth Circuit pre-Dobbs; state constitutional status unresolved. - **Parental consent for minors** — Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.121 _(Statute)_ · [codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.121](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2919.121) Requires one-parent consent for unemancipated minors with judicial bypass; not yet challenged under the Reproductive Freedom Amendment. - **Public funding restrictions** — Ohio Rev. Code § 9.04 _(Statute)_ · [codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-9.04](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-9.04) Prohibits state and local funds for nontherapeutic abortion coverage. - **ACA exchange plan restriction** — Ohio Rev. Code § 3901.87 _(Statute)_ · [codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-3901.87](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-3901.87) Prohibits qualified health plans sold on the ACA exchange from covering nontherapeutic abortion. - **Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost (2026 appellate decision)** — Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, 2026-Ohio-23 (1st Dist.) _(Case)_ · [courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/…](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/ohio-coa-abortion-injunction-opinion.pdf) First appellate decision applying the Reproductive Freedom Amendment to abortion restrictions; affirms permanent injunction of the heartbeat ban. ## Research notes > Overall confidence: Medium. Analysis current as of July 12, 2026; research completed July 12, 2026. This analysis reflects Ohio law as of mid-2025. The legal landscape is exceptionally fluid: multiple preliminary injunctions are in effect, three major cases are pending on the merits, and the legislature continues to pass or advance abortion-related bills. Key items to re-verify before publication: (1) the status of HB 347 (SHE WINS Act) in the Ohio Senate — it passed the House in March 2026; (2) the status of the Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region v. Ohio Dept. of Health litigation; (3) the status of the Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost waiting period challenge; (4) any new appellate decisions following the January 2026 First District remand; (5) the status of HB 370 (Prenatal Equal Protection Act) and HB 928 (abortion trafficking expansion). The R.C. 2919.14 'abortion trafficking' statute is notably misleading — the public-facing summary should explain it does not criminalize travel assistance. The tension between fetal personhood language in the homicide code and the constitutional right to abortion is a structural feature of Ohio law that may confuse readers. Unresolved points: The exact enforceability of the 20-week post-fertilization ban (R.C. 2919.201) and the post-viability ban (R.C. 2919.17) under the Reproductive Freedom Amendment has not been separately adjudicated. — Whether the D&E and D&X method bans survive the 'least restrictive means' and 'evidence-based standards of care' tests in Art. I, § 22 has not been litigated. — The constitutionality of the Down syndrome abortion ban (R.C. 2919.10) under Ohio's state constitution is unresolved. — Whether the parental consent statute (R.C. 2919.121) is affected by the Reproductive Freedom Amendment has not been tested. — The practical effect of the First District Court of Appeals' remand of ancillary S.B. 23 provisions is unknown. — Whether the constitutional 'health' protection encompasses mental health contrary to the statutory exclusion in R.C. 2919.16(K) has not been adjudicated..