Other Anti-Choice Law

Ohio limits the provision of mifepristone in ways that are both medically unnecessary and so inflexible that they lack exceptions to protect a woman's life or health.

In 2004, Ohio enacted a law banning any person from distributing mifepristone unless many conditions are met. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2919.123 (Enacted 2004).  At this time, however, the law is unenforceable, due to a permanent injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, which will remain in effect until the 6th Circuit reviews for vagueness several of the questions of state law raised in the case.  Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region v. Taft, 337 F.Supp.2d 1040 (S.D.Ohio 2006), aff'd in part, and remanded, 531 F.3d 406 (6th Cir. 2008), cert. granted, No. 2008-1234 (Ohio, Oct, 20, 2008). In issuing the injunction, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio held that the law is unconstitutionally vague and that no portion of the law may be severed.  The 6th circuit certified two questions to the Ohio Supreme Court, asking for clarification on whether the law imposes certain types of limits on the use of mifepristone.  The Surpreme Court interpreted these questions in the same manner as the district court had. Cordray v. Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region, No. 2009-Ohio-2972, slip op. (Ohio S. Ct. July 1, 2009).

The currently unenforceable law would prevent doctors from engaging in evidence-based or "off-label" use of mifepristone.  Standard medical practice assumes that in many instances, evidence-based drug use is essential to providing optimal patient care, and off-label use of mifepristone is common, safe, effective, and necessary.  While estimates vary about the total number of prescriptions written for evidence-based use, an American Medical association (AMA) official has estimated that 40-60 percent of all prescriptions in the United States are written for evidence-based uses.  Again, the law contains no exception to protect the life or the health of the woman.