Voinovich v. Women's Medical Professional Corp.

Background

In 1995, the Ohio legislature passed House Bill 135 by an overwhelming majority to limit abortions after fetal viability. The law required a physician to determine, “in good faith and in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment,” that the abortion was necessary to prevent the pregnant woman’s death or serious, irreversible bodily harm, and included certification and emergency provisions. A federal trial court blocked the law, and a divided Sixth Circuit panel affirmed that injunction by finding the statute vague and lacking a required mental-health exception.

Reasoning

The central question presented to the Supreme Court was whether the Ohio post-viability restrictions were consistent with the Constitution. The Court declined to take the case, so it did not resolve those questions. In a published dissent from the denial, Justice Thomas (joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Scalia) argued the appeals court erred. He wrote that the statute’s combined subjective and objective wording is not void for vagueness, rejected the idea that the law must include an explicit mental-health exception after viability, and urged the Court to grant review to decide these issues.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court declined review, the lower-court injunction blocking enforcement of Ohio’s law remains in place. Justice Thomas warned that the appeals court’s reasoning could cast doubt on many other state statutes—the opinion notes over three-quarters of States (about 38) have post-viability limits and most lack explicit mental-health exceptions. The denial leaves those broader questions unresolved and could continue uncertainty for doctors and state lawmakers.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas’s dissent explains why he would have granted review and summarizes his legal objections to the appeals court’s vagueness and mental-health-exception holdings.