Why It Matters
Ohio lawmakers are pushing a new abortion waiting period requirement through the state Senate, a move that puts the legislature on a potential collision course with a constitutional amendment that Ohio voters approved just three years ago. The outcome could define the boundaries of legislative authority over abortion in states where voters have separately enshrined access protections.
What Happened
The Ohio Senate Health Committee announced a Wednesday hearing to gather testimony from backers of House Bill 347, which would require a pregnant person to consult with a medical professional no fewer than 24 hours before an abortion is performed. Doctors conducting those consultations would face civil penalties if they fail to deliver required informed consent materials.
The legislation would also task the Ohio State Medical Board with drafting rules identifying specific physical or psychological risks from abortion that physicians must communicate to patients. State Rep. Josh Williams, R-Sylvania Township, a sponsor of the bill, framed the measure as a patient protection, stating: “She should not be used, or pressured into a decision and she will not be uninformed in the state of Ohio.”
H.B. 347 advanced out of a House committee in March along party lines before the full chamber approved it by a 64-to-32 margin, again with Republicans and Democrats splitting along party lines.
By the Numbers
- 24 hours: Minimum required gap between consultation and procedure under the bill
- 64–32: Final Ohio House vote approving the legislation
- 57%: Ohio voter support for the 2023 constitutional amendment protecting abortion access
- 1: Number of OB/GYNs currently serving on the Ohio State Medical Board, which would hold rulemaking authority under the bill
- 35% of abortion patients in Ohio’s 2025 report had two or more prior children; 24% had one child
Legal and Regulatory Questions
The bill carries substantial legal risk. In 2024, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge David C. Young suspended an earlier 24-hour waiting period requirement, ruling it conflicted with the constitutional amendment Ohio voters had passed the previous year. In that decision, Judge Young wrote that “the plain language of the amendment clearly sets forth the applicable legal standard. This language is easily understood and clear.”
Separate questions surround the body that would be charged with writing disclosure rules under H.B. 347. The Ohio State Medical Board’s president is a dermatologist and its vice president is a podiatrist. The broader membership spans pulmonology, pediatrics, orthopedic surgery, spinal treatments, and internal medicine, and includes three attorneys. One of those attorneys is Michael Gonidakis, a former head and current member of Ohio Right to Life. Only a single OB/GYN sits on the board.
Zoom Out
Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, dozens of states have enacted or pursued waiting periods, informed consent mandates, and other procedural restrictions on abortion. Ohio occupies an unusual position within that national landscape: its legislature is attempting to impose restrictions that must contend directly with a voter-ratified constitutional guarantee, creating a tension few other states have faced in the same form.
Several other states with similar ballot-approved abortion protections have seen legislative restrictions challenged quickly in court, a pattern that suggests Ohio could face prompt litigation if the bill becomes law.
What’s Next
Wednesday’s committee session will hear only from supporters of the bill. No date has been set for opposition testimony. Should the Senate Health Committee vote to advance the measure, it would move to a full Senate floor vote. Passage there would send the bill to the governor, though any enacted version would likely face an immediate legal challenge grounded in the 2023 constitutional amendment, returning the dispute to Ohio’s judiciary.