{"id":29551,"date":"2023-09-27T22:12:36","date_gmt":"2023-09-27T22:12:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/?p=29551"},"modified":"2024-03-01T18:26:31","modified_gmt":"2024-03-01T18:26:31","slug":"can-preliminary-injunction-keeping-heartbeat-act-on-hold-be-appealed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/can-preliminary-injunction-keeping-heartbeat-act-on-hold-be-appealed\/","title":{"rendered":"Can Preliminary Injunction Keeping &#8216;Heartbeat Act&#8217; on Hold Be Appealed?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\"><em>Preterm-Cleveland et al. v. David Yost, attorney general of Ohio, et al.<\/em>, Case No.&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.ohio.gov\/Clerk\/ecms\/#\/caseinfo\/2023\/0004\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">2023-0004<\/a><br>First District Court of Appeals (Hamilton County)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\">ISSUES:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li class=\"has-medium-font-size\">Can the state immediately appeal a preliminary injunction that stops the implementation of a state law?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"has-medium-font-size\">Do doctors and clinics that perform abortions have standing to challenge the Human Rights and Heartbeat Protection Act?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\">BACKGROUND:<br>In April 2019, the&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/l.asp\" target=\"_blank\">General Assembly<\/a>&nbsp;passed Senate Bill 23. The legislation, named the \u201cHuman Rights and Heartbeat Protection Act,\u201d requires a health care provider who intends to perform an abortion to determine whether the embryo or fetus has cardiac activity. If there is cardiac activity, it is illegal for a health care provider to perform or induce an abortion with the \u201cintent of causing or abetting\u201d the termination of the pregnancy. Abortion is allowed under the law for some medical emergencies or when a woman has certain medically diagnosed conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\">Violating S.B. 23 is a fifth-degree&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/f.asp\" target=\"_blank\">felony<\/a>&nbsp;with the possibility of up to one year in&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/p.asp\" target=\"_blank\">prison<\/a>&nbsp;and a&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/f.asp\" target=\"_blank\">fine<\/a>&nbsp;of $2,500. The state medical board can assess up to $20,000 for each violation of the law and limit, revoke, or suspend the physician\u2019s license to practice medicine. Clinics can face&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/c.asp\" target=\"_blank\">civil lawsuits<\/a>&nbsp;and loss of their licenses as ambulatory surgical facilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\">Before S.B. 23 took effect, several reproductive health care clinics challenged it in federal district court. In 2019, the district court preliminarily stopped the legislation from taking effect based on the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/1971\/70-18\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>Roe v. Wade<\/em><\/a>&nbsp;(1973) and&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/1991\/91-744\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>Planned Parenthood v. Casey<\/em><\/a>&nbsp;(1992).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\">In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/r.asp\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">reversed<\/a>&nbsp;<em>Roe<\/em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>Casey<\/em>&nbsp;in&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/21pdf\/19-1392_6j37.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization<\/em><\/a>. Based on the decision, the district court dissolved the injunction, and the act took effect that month in Ohio.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\"><strong>Lawsuit Filed in State Court<\/strong><br>A doctor and several clinics&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/f.asp\" target=\"_blank\">filed<\/a>&nbsp;a lawsuit in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court against the Ohio attorney general, the director of the Ohio Department of Health, and the secretary and the supervising member of the State Medical Board of Ohio. The health care providers asked in part for a preliminary&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/i.asp\" target=\"_blank\">injunction<\/a>&nbsp;to prevent the enforcement of S.B. 23 while the case was pending. In October 2022, the court held a&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/h.asp\" target=\"_blank\">hearing<\/a>&nbsp;and issued the injunction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\">The Ohio Attorney General\u2019s Office appealed the preliminary injunction to the First District Court of Appeals. The attorney general challenged whether the health care providers were entitled to the preliminary injunction; whether they had&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/s.asp\" target=\"_blank\">standing<\/a>, or the right, to pursue their lawsuit; and whether abortion is constitutional under the Ohio Constitution. The First District had the&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/p.asp\" target=\"_blank\">parties<\/a>&nbsp;submit additional briefs on whether the state was permitted to appeal this preliminary injunction. The appeals court determined that the preliminary injunction was not a final order and could not be appealed. The court&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/d.asp\" target=\"_blank\">dismissed<\/a>&nbsp;the appeal, concluding that the state must wait for a final&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/j.asp\" target=\"_blank\">judgment<\/a>&nbsp;from the trial court first.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\">The attorney general then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which agreed to hear the issues on appealing the preliminary injunction and on standing. The Court declined to hear the constitutional&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/c.asp\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">claim<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\"><strong>State Maintains It Has No Meaningful Remedy if Appeal Can\u2019t Be Heard Now<\/strong><br>The state explains that a preliminary injunction is considered a \u201cprovisional&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/r.asp\" target=\"_blank\">remedy<\/a>\u201d made by a court.&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/codes.ohio.gov\/ohio-revised-code\/section-2505.02\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">R.C. 2505.02(B)(4)<\/a>&nbsp;allows court orders related to provisional remedies to be appealed immediately if two circumstances apply. First, the trial court must have issued a final decision about the preliminary injunction. Second, the appealing&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/p.asp\" target=\"_blank\">party<\/a>&nbsp;must show it would not be \u201cafforded a meaningful or effective remedy\u201d if they had to wait for the court to issue a final judgment before appealing. This case turns on the second factor, the state indicates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\">The state argues it will be irreparably injured if this immediate appeal isn\u2019t permitted and it must wait for a remedy. The state maintains that it is irreparably injured when stopped by a court from putting&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/s.asp\" target=\"_blank\">statutes<\/a>&nbsp;enacted by the people\u2019s representatives into operation. This kind of court order denies the state \u201cthe ability to faithfully execute powers entrusted to it by the people,\u201d the state\u2019s&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/b.asp\" target=\"_blank\">brief<\/a>&nbsp;argues. The only time a court can stop a statute from taking effect is when the law is unconstitutional, the state contends. However, when the state appeals a preliminary injunction blocking a law\u2019s operation, courts must presume that the law in question is constitutional, the state argues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\">The state also asserts that its role in regulating the medical profession is undermined every time a doctor performs an abortion prohibited by state law but allowed to happen because of an injunction blocking the law. In addition, because abortions are irreversible, an injunction undercuts the goal of S.B. 23 to protect unborn humans, the state\u2019s brief argues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\"><strong>Health Care Providers Argue Appeal Allowed After Lower Court Final Judgment<\/strong><br>The health care providers in this case \u2013 Preterm-Cleveland, Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio, Women\u2019s Med Group Professional Corp., Northeast Ohio Women\u2019s Center, and Dr. Sharon Liner \u2013 argue that the preliminary injunction is not a final, appealable order. The purpose of the injunction is to maintain the status quo until a court can rule on the merits of the issue, the health care providers maintain. In this case, the trial court concluded that the preliminary injunction preserved \u201cthe status quo of legal and safe abortion access that has been in place in Ohio for nearly five decades\u201d before S.B. 23 took effect. They contend that the injunction doesn\u2019t deprive the state of a meaningful remedy, but only delays the remedy until the court reaches a final judgment. At that point, the state could appeal the ruling, the health care providers note.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\">They dispute the state\u2019s claim that a court order&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/e.asp\" target=\"_blank\">enjoining<\/a>&nbsp;state laws always causes irreparable harm to the state. The argument is unfounded, would \u201cinvent additional exceptions\u201d not found in the statute defining when immediate appeals are allowed, and also ignores&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/p.asp\" target=\"_blank\">precedent<\/a>&nbsp;in Ohio, the health care providers assert in their brief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\">They reject the state\u2019s view that S.B. 23 is presumed constitutional. That makes a premature leap that the state is correct that the law is constitutional, and it\u2019s an attempt to require the Supreme Court to improperly address the merits of the case too early, the health care providers contend.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\">On the state\u2019s role in regulating the medical profession, the health care providers maintain that if the state ultimately prevails in the case, those provisions of S.B. 23 go into effect. The health care providers also disagree that the state can appeal the preliminary injunction based on its interest in stopping abortions to protect fetal life. The exception in R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) allows appeals of preliminary injunctions only when harm is suffered by the appealing party, but the state has failed to show any concrete evidence how it has been harmed, the health care providers maintain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\"><strong>State Contends Health Care Providers Can\u2019t Sue<\/strong><br>The state maintains that the health care providers had no standing to challenge the law in court. Parties can\u2019t challenge a law on the basis that it violates someone else\u2019s rights, the state argues. When a party doesn\u2019t have standing, a court cannot exercise its authority in the case. There is an exception, called \u201cthird-party standing,\u201d allowed in narrow circumstances, the state explains. Its brief notes that third-party standing is established when the&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/p.asp\" target=\"_blank\">plaintiff<\/a>&nbsp;\u201c(i) suffers its own injury in fact, (ii) possesses a sufficiently close relationship with the person who possesses the right, and (iii) shows some hindrance that stands in the way\u201d of the person with the right from seeking&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/r.asp\" target=\"_blank\">relief<\/a>&nbsp;in the courts. Even if the health care providers can meet the first factor, they cannot establish the second or third, the state contends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\">On the close relationship factor, the state argues that a woman who obtains an abortion doesn\u2019t develop a close relationship with the doctor who performs the procedure or the clinic where the doctor works. The state also asserts that there is a conflict of interest between health care providers and their patients because, under S.B. 23, women who obtain abortions can later sue the doctors who performed them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\">The state disagrees with the claim that privacy interests are a hindrance to women themselves directly suing to challenge this law. Women could sue without using their names to protect their identities, as juveniles do when they ask a court, rather than their parents, to authorize an abortion, the state contends. The state maintains in its brief that although federal courts have permitted health care providers to sue on behalf of their patients, \u201ca principled application of third-party standing principles would have precluded standing in such cases.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\"><strong>Health Care Providers Counter That Long Precedent Permits Them to Sue<\/strong><br>The health care providers assert that the state mischaracterizes the U.S. Supreme Court decision in&nbsp;<em>Dobbs<\/em>&nbsp;by claiming that it changed federal law on third-party standing. They maintain that the Supreme Court in&nbsp;<em>Dobbs<\/em>&nbsp;ruled on the case merits, which makes clear that the abortion providers who had sued had standing in that case.&nbsp;<em>Dobbs<\/em>&nbsp;didn\u2019t overrule the longtime doctrine on third-party standing \u2013 either generally, or when a case involves doctors and clinics that provide abortions, the health care providers argue. They also point to several Ohio courts that have ruled that doctors and facilities that perform abortions have standing to raise legal claims on behalf of their patients.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\">Abortion providers meet all requirements for establishing third-party standing, the health care providers contend. They note first that S.B. 23 would injure providers due to the threat of criminal and civil penalties. They maintain the second factor is met because there is a close relationship between a patient and a doctor because a women needs a physician\u2019s help to secure an abortion safely. The health care providers note, for example, that Ohio women must go to two appointments at a facility. The first meeting involves meeting with a physician for consent, obtaining a determination whether there is cardiac activity, and receiving state-mandated information, the health care providers explain. They also disagree that there is a conflict of interest between women and their health care providers. Doctors have an ethical obligation to advocate for their patients and prioritize their medical needs, regardless of some possible future legal action, the health care providers argue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\">They describe several hindrances that may keep women from filing lawsuits on their own behalf. In part, women are trying to obtain an abortion, which takes time away from family, time off of work and fear of job loss, and costs for travel out of state. These concerns are more pressing than filing a lawsuit, the health care providers maintain. They add that women also may be reluctant to testify about private medical decisions, concerned that their identity won\u2019t be concealed even with a pseudonym, distressed by hostility toward abortion, and fearful given examples of violence at abortion clinics and toward doctors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\"><strong>Additional Briefs Backing State Include Other States<\/strong><br>An\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/a.asp\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">amicus curiae<\/a>\u00a0brief supporting the state\u2019s position was submitted jointly by 18 other states \u2013\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.ohio.gov\/pdf_viewer\/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=943239.pdf&amp;subdirectory=2023-0004%5CDocketItems&amp;source=DL_Clerk\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia<\/a>. A joint amicus brief also was filed by\u00a0Center for Christian Virtue, Cincinnati Right to Life, Cleveland Right to Life, Greater Columbus Right to Life, Justice Foundation, Ohio Right to Life, Right to Life Action Coalition, and Students for Life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\"><strong>Briefs Supporting Health Care Providers Submitted by Medical and Social Work Groups<\/strong><br>The&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.ohio.gov\/pdf_viewer\/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=945377.pdf&amp;subdirectory=2023-0004%5CDocketItems&amp;source=DL_Clerk\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine<\/a>&nbsp;filed a joint amicus brief supporting the health care providers. The&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.ohio.gov\/pdf_viewer\/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=945314.pdf&amp;subdirectory=2023-0004%5CDocketItems&amp;source=DL_Clerk\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Academy of Medicine of Cleveland &amp; Northern Ohio<\/a>&nbsp;and the&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.ohio.gov\/pdf_viewer\/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=945371.pdf&amp;subdirectory=2023-0004%5CDocketItems&amp;source=DL_Clerk\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">National Association of Social Workers<\/a>&nbsp;submitted individual briefs in support of the health care providers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\"><strong>County Prosecutors Won\u2019t Argue<\/strong><br>Prosecutor\u2019s offices in Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton, Lucas, Montgomery, and Summit counties were named in this case. Because none filed merit briefs, they will not be permitted to argue before the Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p style=\"font-size:18px\">\u2013<em>&nbsp;Kathleen Maloney<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\"><em>Docket entries, memoranda, briefs (including&nbsp;<\/em><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/a.asp\" target=\"_blank\"><em>amicus<\/em><\/a><em>&nbsp;briefs), and other information about this case may be accessed through the&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.ohio.gov\/Clerk\/ecms\/#\/caseinfo\/2023\/0004\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">case docket<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\"><strong>Contacts<\/strong><br>Representing the State of Ohio from the Ohio Attorney General\u2019s Office: Benjamin Flowers,&nbsp;<a href=\"mailto:benjamin.flowers@ohioago.gov\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">benjamin.flowers@ohioago.gov<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-medium-font-size\">Representing Preterm-Cleveland&nbsp;<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.courtnewsohio.gov\/glossary\/e.asp\" target=\"_blank\">et al.<\/a>: Beatrice Hill,&nbsp;<a href=\"mailto:bjh11@cwru.edu\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">bjh11@cwru.edu<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Preterm-Cleveland et al. v. David Yost, attorney general of Ohio, et al., Case No.&nbsp;2023-0004First District Court of Appeals (Hamilton County) ISSUES: BACKGROUND:In April 2019, the&nbsp;General Assembly&nbsp;passed Senate Bill 23. The legislation, named the \u201cHuman Rights and Heartbeat Protection Act,\u201d requires a health care provider who intends to perform an abortion to determine whether the embryo&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":29552,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29551","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v24.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Can Preliminary Injunction Keeping &#039;Heartbeat Act&#039; on Hold Be Appealed? - Cincinnati Right to Life<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/can-preliminary-injunction-keeping-heartbeat-act-on-hold-be-appealed\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Can Preliminary Injunction Keeping &#039;Heartbeat Act&#039; on Hold Be Appealed? - Cincinnati Right to Life\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Preterm-Cleveland et al. v. David Yost, attorney general of Ohio, et al., Case No.&nbsp;2023-0004First District Court of Appeals (Hamilton County) ISSUES: BACKGROUND:In April 2019, the&nbsp;General Assembly&nbsp;passed Senate Bill 23. The legislation, named the \u201cHuman Rights and Heartbeat Protection Act,\u201d requires a health care provider who intends to perform an abortion to determine whether the embryo&hellip;\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/can-preliminary-injunction-keeping-heartbeat-act-on-hold-be-appealed\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Cincinnati Right to Life\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-09-27T22:12:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-03-01T18:26:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/Heartbeat-Act-Hold-Appeal.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"600\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Melanie Wade\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Melanie Wade\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/can-preliminary-injunction-keeping-heartbeat-act-on-hold-be-appealed\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/can-preliminary-injunction-keeping-heartbeat-act-on-hold-be-appealed\/\",\"name\":\"Can Preliminary Injunction Keeping 'Heartbeat Act' on Hold Be Appealed? - Cincinnati Right to Life\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/can-preliminary-injunction-keeping-heartbeat-act-on-hold-be-appealed\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/can-preliminary-injunction-keeping-heartbeat-act-on-hold-be-appealed\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/Heartbeat-Act-Hold-Appeal.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-09-27T22:12:36+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-03-01T18:26:31+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/#\/schema\/person\/9a5fe1347253fa134f21cdb919caf789\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/can-preliminary-injunction-keeping-heartbeat-act-on-hold-be-appealed\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/can-preliminary-injunction-keeping-heartbeat-act-on-hold-be-appealed\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/can-preliminary-injunction-keeping-heartbeat-act-on-hold-be-appealed\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/Heartbeat-Act-Hold-Appeal.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/Heartbeat-Act-Hold-Appeal.png\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":600},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/can-preliminary-injunction-keeping-heartbeat-act-on-hold-be-appealed\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Can Preliminary Injunction Keeping &#8216;Heartbeat Act&#8217; on Hold Be Appealed?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/\",\"name\":\"Cincinnati Right to Life\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/#\/schema\/person\/9a5fe1347253fa134f21cdb919caf789\",\"name\":\"Melanie Wade\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7ec3fd7a1977f4be962597ccc3e12001?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7ec3fd7a1977f4be962597ccc3e12001?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Melanie Wade\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/author\/mwade\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Can Preliminary Injunction Keeping 'Heartbeat Act' on Hold Be Appealed? - Cincinnati Right to Life","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/can-preliminary-injunction-keeping-heartbeat-act-on-hold-be-appealed\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Can Preliminary Injunction Keeping 'Heartbeat Act' on Hold Be Appealed? - Cincinnati Right to Life","og_description":"Preterm-Cleveland et al. v. David Yost, attorney general of Ohio, et al., Case No.&nbsp;2023-0004First District Court of Appeals (Hamilton County) ISSUES: BACKGROUND:In April 2019, the&nbsp;General Assembly&nbsp;passed Senate Bill 23. The legislation, named the \u201cHuman Rights and Heartbeat Protection Act,\u201d requires a health care provider who intends to perform an abortion to determine whether the embryo&hellip;","og_url":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/can-preliminary-injunction-keeping-heartbeat-act-on-hold-be-appealed\/","og_site_name":"Cincinnati Right to Life","article_published_time":"2023-09-27T22:12:36+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-03-01T18:26:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":600,"url":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/Heartbeat-Act-Hold-Appeal.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Melanie Wade","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Melanie Wade","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/can-preliminary-injunction-keeping-heartbeat-act-on-hold-be-appealed\/","url":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/can-preliminary-injunction-keeping-heartbeat-act-on-hold-be-appealed\/","name":"Can Preliminary Injunction Keeping 'Heartbeat Act' on Hold Be Appealed? - Cincinnati Right to Life","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/can-preliminary-injunction-keeping-heartbeat-act-on-hold-be-appealed\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/can-preliminary-injunction-keeping-heartbeat-act-on-hold-be-appealed\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/Heartbeat-Act-Hold-Appeal.png","datePublished":"2023-09-27T22:12:36+00:00","dateModified":"2024-03-01T18:26:31+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/#\/schema\/person\/9a5fe1347253fa134f21cdb919caf789"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/can-preliminary-injunction-keeping-heartbeat-act-on-hold-be-appealed\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/can-preliminary-injunction-keeping-heartbeat-act-on-hold-be-appealed\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/can-preliminary-injunction-keeping-heartbeat-act-on-hold-be-appealed\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/Heartbeat-Act-Hold-Appeal.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/Heartbeat-Act-Hold-Appeal.png","width":1200,"height":600},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/can-preliminary-injunction-keeping-heartbeat-act-on-hold-be-appealed\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Can Preliminary Injunction Keeping &#8216;Heartbeat Act&#8217; on Hold Be Appealed?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/","name":"Cincinnati Right to Life","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/#\/schema\/person\/9a5fe1347253fa134f21cdb919caf789","name":"Melanie Wade","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7ec3fd7a1977f4be962597ccc3e12001?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7ec3fd7a1977f4be962597ccc3e12001?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Melanie Wade"},"url":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/author\/mwade\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29551","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29551"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29551\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":29564,"href":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29551\/revisions\/29564"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/29552"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29551"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29551"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cincinnatirighttolife.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29551"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}