Jessie Balmert

jbalmert@enquirer.com

COLUMBUS - The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to strike down abortion restrictions in Texas has Ohioans on both sides of the debate wondering if the Buckeye State could be next.

"This gives us reason to hope," said Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot impose restrictions that pose an undue burden on women seeking abortions. The justices, in a 5-3 decision, struck down Texas restrictions that threatened to close all but nine clinics there.

Supreme Court strikes down abortion restrictions

Texas had argued that the restrictions – requiring clinics to meet surgical-center operating standards and doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals – were necessary to protect women's health. Abortion rights advocates said that by adding delays and distance to the obstacles women face, the medical risks would only rise.

Sounds familiar? That's because Ohio's GOP-controlled Legislature passed a similar law in 2013 requiring abortion clinics to have a transfer agreement with a local, private hospital. Two years later, lawmakers required that hospital to be within 30 miles of the abortion clinic – a problem for Toledo's abortion clinic contracting with a Michigan hospital.

While Monday's decision does not strike down Ohio’s law, lawyers could soon file lawsuits to challenge it.

But Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life, said Texas' requirement to have admitting privileges for doctors is different than Ohio's requirement to have a hospital agree to accept patients in an emergency. Even though Gonidakis called the Supreme Court ruling "a punch in the gut to the pro-life movement," he doesn't believe the decision will apply in Ohio because of that difference.

"The Supreme Court had ample room to say, 'Let’s strike down all those other states, too.' You have to take face value what is written. They focused solely on Texas," Gonidakis said.

NARAL Pro-Choice's Copeland argues that Ohio legislators should be concerned about passing restrictive abortion laws that have no medical purpose.

"These regulations, just like the ones in Texas, do nothing to address women’s health and safety," Copeland said.

Since 2013, the number of abortion clinics in Ohio has dropped from 14 to nine. A couple abortion clinics, including Sharonville’s Women's Med, were forced to halt abortions without a patient-transfer agreement. Others, such as Mount Auburn's Planned Parenthood, were forced to obtain an exception to the law, called a variance, by listing four or more back-up doctors willing to accept patients in an emergency.

Last June, lawmakers made it easier to deny variances by giving the Ohio Department of Health 60 days to make a decision on each request. The variance automatically is denied if health department officials don’t make a decision in that time.

That law is one of several recently passed by Republicans in the Ohio Legislature and signed by GOP Gov. John Kasich to reduce access to abortions in Ohio. In February, lawmakers voted to strip more than $1 million from Planned Parenthood’s budget, a move that a federal judge has put on hold for now.

At the least, Monday's decision should prevent Ohio lawmakers from requiring doctors at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, said Jennifer Branch, a Cincinnati lawyer who has represented Planned Parenthood and other clinics.

And she could use the Supreme Court's decision in a pending federal lawsuit, which is challenging laws requiring hospital-transfer agreements passed by Ohio lawmakers in 2013 and 2015.

“This decision today will have an impact on that litigation, but I can’t tell you how,” she said.

USA TODAY reporter Richard Wolf contributed.