|
 In a 9-7 decision, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Cincinnati said the law did not create a substantial obstacle to
obtaining abortions, was reasonably related to Ohio's legitimate
interests, and was "valid in all conceivable cases."
Another federal appeals court declared a similar Arkansas law
unconstitutional in January. The split could prompt the Supreme
Court's 6-3 conservative majority to take up the issue.
Arkansas' Republican Attorney General Leslie Rutledge on Tuesday
asked the Supreme Court to review the January ruling.
Ohio's law subjects doctors to license revocations and up to 18
months in prison for performing abortions on women they knew decided
to abort at least in part because Down syndrome was in the fetus, or
had reason to believe the condition was present.
Tuesday's decision reversed an October 2019 ruling by a divided
three-judge 6th Circuit panel that said the law, House Bill 214,
unlawfully prevented some women from obtaining pre-viability
abortions.
Ohio's law had been challenged by Planned Parenthood and other
abortion providers.
"This abortion ban inserts politicians between patients and their
doctors, denying services to those who need it," Planned Parenthood
president Alexis McGill Johnson said.
[to top of second column] |
 Down syndrome is a genetic
disorder where a person has an extra chromosome.
Symptoms include cognitive impairment, slower
physical growth, a flat face, a small head, a
short neck and poor muscle tone.
Circuit Judge Alice Batchelder, who wrote Tuesday's majority
opinion, said Ohio's law promoted the state's interests in
destigmatizing Down syndrome children, and encouraging doctors to
respond to such diagnoses with "care and healing."
The dissenters said the decision turns House Bill 214 into a "don't
ask, don't tell" law for doctors and pregnant women.
Circuit Judge Bernice Bouie Donald accused the majority of
demonstrating unconcealed "hostility" toward Roe v. Wade, the 1973
decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion.
The case is Preterm-Cleveland et a v McCloud et al, 6th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals, No. 18-3329.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Jonathan
Oatis and Howard Goller)
[© 2021 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2021 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content
 |
