Planned Parenthood and several Ohio-based women’s health organizations have emerged victorious in a significant legal battle against the state, which challenged the constitutionality of a controversial abortion-related law. On February 25, 2026, Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region filed a complaint in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas against the Ohio Department of Health and its director Bruce Vanderhoff, as well as the State Medical Board of Ohio. The plaintiffs argued that Senate Bill 27 (S.B. 27), enacted in 2020, was unconstitutional under the newly ratified Reproductive Freedom Amendment to the Ohio Constitution.
The case centers around S.B. 27’s requirement for fetal tissue from procedural abortions to be disposed of through cremation or interment, imposing financial and record-keeping obligations on abortion facilities. Planned Parenthood and other providers claimed this mandate discriminated against their right to reproductive freedom by imposing differential treatment compared to other medical procedures. The trial court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that S.B. 27 violated Article I, Section 22 of the Ohio Constitution by burdening and discriminating against those seeking abortions and those assisting them.
The state appealed, arguing that the Reproductive Freedom Amendment did not apply to post-abortion conduct such as fetal tissue disposition. However, the appellate court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the amendment broadly prohibits any state action that burdens or discriminates against abortion rights at any stage of the process. The court found no temporal limitation within the amendment’s language that would exclude post-abortion regulations from its protections.
Furthermore, while addressing severability issues within S.B. 27, the court determined that most provisions directly related to fetal tissue disposition could not stand independently without being nonsensical. However, it did allow for certain amendments unrelated to tissue disposition—such as changes to definitions concerning “probable gestational age”—to remain enforceable.
The plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment declaring S.B. 27 unconstitutional and a permanent injunction preventing its enforcement. They were represented by attorneys Camila Vega and Hannah Swanson from The Cochran Firm alongside Fanon A. Rucker; additional support came from American Civil Liberties Union lawyers B. Jessie Hill, Freda J Levenson among others involved in representing Preterm-Cleveland Women’s Med Group Professional Corporation Northeast Ohio Women’s Center LLC respectively.
Presiding Judge Kinsley delivered this pivotal decision affirming modifications made by lower courts regarding enforcement limitations placed upon portions deemed severable while maintaining broader injunctive relief granted initially against discriminatory aspects present throughout much legislation challenged herein identified under Case ID C-250163
Source: 2026Ohio639_Planned_Parenthood_Southwest_Ohio_Region_v_Ohio_Department_of_Health_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf