## Facts

- Ohio law generally prohibited performing an abortion on an unemancipated minor without written consent from the minor and a parent or guardian, subject to a judicial-bypass procedure.
- A 1998 amendment added a “Single-Petition Rule” barring any juvenile court from rehearing a judicial-bypass petition concerning the same pregnancy after a grant or denial.
- The amendment also required an “In-Person Rule,” mandating an in-person meeting with a physician at least 24 hours before an abortion to provide informed-consent information.
- An abortion provider and its medical director filed a facial constitutional challenge to both provisions in federal district court.
- After a bench trial, the district court upheld both provisions and entered judgment for state officials charged with enforcement.
- On appeal, enforcement of the Single-Petition Rule was enjoined pending decision; the In-Person Rule remained in effect.

## Issues

1. Whether the Single-Petition Rule, limiting minors to one judicial-bypass petition per pregnancy and foreclosing rehearing, imposes an undue burden on the abortion right.
2. Whether the In-Person Rule, requiring an in-person physician visit at least 24 hours before the procedure, imposes an undue burden under the governing constitutional standard.

## Decision

- Reversed in part: the Single-Petition Rule was held unconstitutional because it imposed an undue burden on minors seeking judicial bypass.
- Affirmed in part: the In-Person Rule was upheld as constitutional because it did not impose an undue burden.
- Held that the invalid Single-Petition Rule was severable from the remainder of the statutory scheme.
- Remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A pre-viability abortion regulation is unconstitutional if it has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a person seeking an abortion; substantiality is assessed for a “large fraction” of those for whom the law is relevant.
- A categorical bar on filing or rehearing a second judicial-bypass petition for the same pregnancy can impose an undue burden where it blocks reconsideration despite material changes in circumstances relevant to maturity, knowledge, or best interests.
- A state interest in discouraging judge-shopping does not justify a blanket prohibition that forecloses renewed bypass consideration regardless of changed circumstances.
- In-person informed-consent requirements and a 24-hour waiting period may be valid when they impose logistical and financial burdens but do not function as a substantial obstacle for a large fraction of affected patients.
- When a discrete provision is unconstitutional, it may be severed if state severability rules and statutory structure show the legislature would have enacted the remainder without the invalid part.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that Ohio’s one-petition limit on minors’ judicial-bypass requests created an undue burden by categorically preventing renewed consideration in the same pregnancy, but it upheld Ohio’s in-person, 24-hour informed-consent requirement because it did not amount to a substantial obstacle for a large fraction of women seeking abortions.


Cincinnati Women’s Services, Inc. v. Taft, 468 F.3d 361 (6th Cir. 2006)