Columbus GOP Pushes 24-Hour Abortion Wait As Court Battles Rage

Republican lawmakers in Columbus this week moved ahead with a proposal that would force people seeking abortions to sit down with a physician at least 24 hours before the procedure. Backers are casting the plan as an informed-consent safeguard, while civil-rights and reproductive-health groups argue it unfairly targets abortion and would land hardest on low-income, rural and Black Ohioans. The clash has folded straight into ongoing court fights over similar waiting-period rules that are already tied up in litigation.

What HB 347 Would Require

House Bill 347, filed as the Share the Health and Empower With Informed Notices ("SHE WINS") Act, would require an in-person meeting between a physician and the pregnant person at least 24 hours before an abortion. During that visit, the doctor would have to provide specific information and document informed consent. The bill includes a medical-emergency exception, adds civil-liability penalties for physicians who do not comply, and gives the State Medical Board authority to define the adverse physical or psychological conditions that must be disclosed. Those details are laid out in the bill text, according to House Bill 347.

Opponents Call It Discriminatory And Burdensome

At a House Health Committee hearing, patients and advocates said the extra 24-hour step would not change anyone’s mind, but would ramp up anxiety, lost wages and travel costs. "The 24-hour waiting period ... did absolutely nothing to my decision," Anastasia Martinez testified, saying a prior law forced her to take both medical and mental-health leave. Abortion-rights groups also noted that some of the same tests and procedures are used in non-abortion care, so carving out a special protocol for abortion patients looks like unequal treatment, according to the Marietta Times.

Who Would Feel The Impact

State data highlight why opponents are focused on racial and economic fallout. Among Ohio resident patients for whom race was reported, about 48.9% were Black in 2025, according to the Ohio Department of Health. Witnesses told lawmakers that, layered on top of barriers like no paid leave, child care gaps and long trips to clinics, a 24-hour rule would be especially punishing for historically oppressed communities. Those committee testimonies and local reaction were also detailed by the Ohio Capital Journal.

Court Fights Already In Motion

The legal system is wrestling with waiting-period rules at the same time the legislature is. A Franklin County Common Pleas judge has temporarily blocked enforcement of earlier 24-hour requirements while plaintiffs challenge them under Ohio’s Reproductive Freedom Amendment, according to reporting from The Associated Press and legal filings. The ACLU of Ohio and Planned Parenthood clinics sought that injunction, arguing the rules are medically unnecessary and conflict with the state constitution, according to an ACLU press release. With appeals and related lawsuits moving through the courts, reporters have noted that a final ruling in the overlapping litigation may not land until at least summer 2026.

Supporters Say It Levels The Consent Playing Field

Supporters of HB 347 told the committee that the bill is about consistency, not revisiting the 2023 abortion-rights ballot amendment. They argue it would standardize informed consent across medical care and make sure patients get full information before any major decision. Sponsor Rep. Mike Odioso said the "SHE WINS" Act is intended to align abortion consent rules with those used for other health-care procedures, according to WOSU. Faith-based and anti-abortion organizations also showed up to back the bill.

Doctors Warn Of Bigger Legal Risks

Physicians have a different read on the fine print. Opponents told lawmakers that HB 347’s civil-liability language and new rulemaking power for the State Medical Board could invite lawsuits and professional discipline over routine differences in care. The bill lists a wide range of physical and psychological "complications" the board could require doctors to disclose. Critics pointed to reporting that a prominent anti-abortion lobbyist has influence in state medical circles, concerns that surfaced in testimony covered by the Marietta Times. Similar language is reflected in House Bill 347.

What Happens Next

HB 347 is still parked in the House Health Committee, where lawmakers can amend it, vote it forward or quietly let it stall while the courts sort out existing rules. The next moves will be as procedural as they are political. Whether or not the bill advances, the hearings make clear that Ohio’s abortion fight is playing out on two tracks at once, in courtrooms and at the Statehouse, as providers and advocates keep pressing their arguments, according to public bill trackers.