Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region v. TED STRICKLAND, Governor of the State of Ohio

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 09a0539n.06
Nos. 06-4422, 06-4423
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
PLANNED PARENTHOOD
SOUTHWEST OHIO REGION;
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF
NORTHEAST OHIO; PLANNED
PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL
OHIO; PRETERM; DR. ROSLYN
KADE; AND DR. LASZLO SOGOR,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
TED STRICKLAND, Governor of the
State of Ohio,
Defendant,
RICHARD CORDRAY, Attorney
General of Ohio, and JOSEPH T.
DETERS, Hamilton County
Prosecuting Attorney,
Defendants-Appellants.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO
O R D E R
Before: MOORE, ROGERS, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. This case involves the constitutionality of
Ohio Revised Code (“O.R.C.”) § 2919.123, which regulates the use of mifepristone to provide
medical abortions. In 2004 the district court issued a preliminary injunction because it found that
the statute lacked a health exception. Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region v. Taft, 337 F. Supp.

-- 1 of 2 --

Nos. 06-4422, 06-4423
- 2 -
2d 1040 (S.D. Ohio 2004). We vacated the injunction in part and remanded to the district court for
further consideration of the breadth of the injunction and of the other arguments raised by the parties.
Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region v. Taft, 444 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2006). On remand, the
district court granted summary judgment and a permanent injunction in favor of plaintiffs based on
its conclusion that § 2919.123 was unconstitutionally vague. Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region
v. Taft, 459 F. Supp. 2d 626 (S.D. Ohio 2006).
On appeal from the permanent injunction, we issued an order certifying two questions to the
Ohio Supreme Court: “(1) Does O.R.C. § 2919.123 mandate that physicians in Ohio who perform
abortions using mifepristone do so in compliance with the forty-nine-day gestational limit described
in the FDA approval letter?” and (2) “Does O.R.C. § 2919.123 mandate that physicians in Ohio who
perform abortions using mifepristone do so in compliance with the treatment protocols and dosage
indications described in the drug’s final printed labeling?” Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region
v. Strickland, 531 F.3d 406 (6th Cir. 2008). The Ohio Supreme Court recently answered both of
these certified questions. Cordray v. Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region, Slip Op. No. 2009-
Ohio-2972. In light of this opinion by the Ohio Supreme Court, we VACATE the permanent
injunction issued by the district court. The preliminary injunction that we AFFIRMED in part
remains in force as per our previous opinion. See Taft, 444 F.3d at 518. We REMAND the case to
the district court for consideration of the Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion as well as issues identified
in our previous remand and any other issues that the parties may raise.

-- 2 of 2 --