Ohio's Abortion Law: Down Syndrome Discrimination

Ohio's Down syndrome abortion law, HB 214, was passed in 2017 by the state's Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by then-Gov. John Kasich. The law prohibits physicians from performing abortions if they are aware that a diagnosis of Down syndrome, or the possibility of such a diagnosis, is influencing the decision. Doctors who violate the law could face criminal penalties, including a fourth-degree felony charge and the loss of their medical license. The law was initially blocked by a federal judge in 2018 but was later upheld by a divided 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021, which ruled that it did not create a substantial obstacle to a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. The law has been controversial, with abortion rights groups and some parents of children with Down syndrome opposing it as an unconstitutional restriction on reproductive freedom.

Doctors face penalties for performing abortions based on a Down syndrome diagnosis

In 2017, Ohio passed a law that prohibits doctors from performing abortions if they are aware that a diagnosis of Down syndrome, or the possibility of such a diagnosis, is influencing the decision. Doctors who perform such abortions could face a fourth-degree felony charge, lose their medical license, and be held liable for legal damages. The law does not impose any criminal liability on the pregnant woman.

The law, known as SB 164, was passed by the Ohio Senate and House by votes of 20-12 and 64-31, respectively. It was then signed into law by Governor John Kasich. The bill specifies that a physician would face a fourth-degree felony charge and lose their license to practice medicine in Ohio if they perform or attempt to perform an abortion on a woman whose fetus has or may have Down syndrome.

The law has been controversial, with opponents arguing that it interferes with medical care and restricts abortion access as early as the first trimester, in conflict with Roe v. Wade. Abortion rights groups and some parents of children with Down syndrome have opposed the law, saying that it uses the genetic disorder to gain sympathy for a new restriction. They argue that elected officials should not meddle with a woman's deeply personal decision on whether to carry a pregnancy to term after a Down syndrome diagnosis.

Proponents of the law, including anti-abortion groups, argue that it seeks to prevent abortions that target and discriminate against those with Down syndrome. They believe that the law protects the Down syndrome community from the stigma of selective abortions, protects women who suspect Down syndrome from coerced abortions, and safeguards the medical community from unethical doctors. The law has been praised by anti-abortion groups, who see it as a step towards protecting unborn babies with Down syndrome and creating a "safe haven" for them.

The law was initially blocked by lower courts, which deemed it unconstitutional. However, in September 2024, a divided federal appeals court, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, lifted the hold on the law, allowing it to be implemented in Ohio. This decision has been praised by anti-abortion activists, who believe it increases the chances that the U.S. Supreme Court will consider a case addressing the challenging issues posed by such legislation.

The law does not impede a woman's right to an abortion

Ohio's Down Syndrome abortion ban, also known as HB 214, prohibits physicians from performing abortions if they are aware that a diagnosis of Down Syndrome, or the possibility of such a diagnosis, is influencing the decision. The law imposes criminal penalties on doctors who perform such abortions, including a fourth-degree felony charge, revocation of their medical license, and liability for legal damages. However, it is important to note that the law does not impose any criminal liability on the pregnant woman.

While some may argue that this law infringes on a woman's right to an abortion, the majority of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it does not. They argued that the law does not create a substantial obstacle to a woman's ability to choose or obtain an abortion. Judge Alice Batchelder, who sided with the majority, wrote that the law only prevents doctors from knowingly performing an abortion due to a Down syndrome diagnosis and that if the woman does not provide a reason, the abortion could still proceed. She also noted that the law sends a "resounding message condemning the practice of selective abortions."

Additionally, the court ruled that the law does not rely on protecting potential fetal life but instead seeks to protect the Down syndrome community from the stigma associated with Down syndrome-selective abortions, safeguard women who suspect Down syndrome from coerced abortions, and maintain the integrity of the medical community by preventing unethical practices. The court also emphasized that the law does not prohibit any abortions at all, and thus, does not impede a woman's right to an abortion.

It is worth noting that this ruling was not unanimous, and several judges disagreed, arguing that the law interferes with a woman's reproductive health decisions and invades the privacy of the patient-doctor relationship. They believe that the law could create a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, hindering open and honest communication between patients and their doctors. Critics also argue that the law does little to protect people with Down syndrome or address their needs and concerns.

While the legal debate continues, it is clear that the Ohio Down Syndrome abortion law has sparked a complex discussion surrounding a woman's right to abortion, the ethical considerations of selective abortions, and the potential impact on individuals with Down syndrome.

Abortion rights groups and parents of children with Down syndrome oppose the law

Abortion rights groups and parents of children with Down syndrome have opposed Ohio's Down syndrome abortion law, arguing that it infringes on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion procedure that is legal. They argue that the law is being used to gain sympathy for further abortion restrictions.

The law prohibits doctors from performing abortions based on a fetal diagnosis of Down syndrome. It does not ban abortion but instead regulates doctors, subjecting them to license revocations and up to 18 months in prison for performing abortions on women they knew decided to abort due to a Down syndrome diagnosis.

The ACLU sued the state health department, state medical board, and county prosecutors in 2018 on behalf of abortion providers, arguing the law infringes on a woman's constitutional right to a legal procedure. The state argued that the law does not ban abortion and that it seeks to prevent abortions that target and discriminate against those with Down syndrome.

The law specifically prohibits physicians from performing an abortion if they are aware that a diagnosis of Down syndrome, or the possibility of such a diagnosis, is influencing the decision. Doctors could face a fourth-degree felony charge, be stripped of their medical license, and be held liable for legal damages. The pregnant woman, however, faces no criminal liability under the law.

The law does not ban the procedure but regulates doctors

Ohio's Down Syndrome Non-Discrimination Act, signed into law by former Republican governor John Kasich in 2017, prohibits doctors from performing abortions based on a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. The law does not ban the procedure but regulates doctors by imposing criminal penalties on them if they perform abortions knowing that the mother's reason for seeking one is a diagnosis of Down syndrome or the belief that the child has Down syndrome. Doctors would face license revocation, up to 18 months in prison, and could be held liable for legal damages. The law also requires doctors to submit a report to the Department of Health for every patient that has an abortion, indicating that the patient did not terminate her pregnancy due to a Down syndrome diagnosis.

The state of Ohio argued that the law does not ban the procedure but instead regulates doctors. The majority opinion of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, stating that the law did not impede a woman's right to an abortion and that it was valid in all conceivable cases. The court's ruling stated that the law did not impose an "undue burden" on women seeking an abortion and that the restrictions were reasonably related to and furthered Ohio's legitimate interests.

The law specifically targets doctors and does not impose any penalties or punishment on women seeking abortions due to a Down syndrome diagnosis. The pregnant woman faces no criminal liability under the law. However, the law has been criticised for interfering with the doctor-patient relationship and discouraging open and honest communication between patients and their doctors. It has also been argued that the law could lead to women withholding information from their doctors or being dishonest about their medical history.

The ACLU of Ohio, which opposed the law, argued that it inappropriately inserts politics into private medical deliberations and sets a dangerous precedent for political intrusion into women's personal health decisions. They also emphasised that the law is not about protecting against discrimination but rather restricting abortion.

The law promotes the state's interests in destigmatizing Down syndrome children

The state of Ohio's law prohibiting abortions based on a fetal diagnosis of Down syndrome promotes the state's interest in destigmatizing Down syndrome children. The law, which was passed in 2017, seeks to prevent abortions that target and discriminate against those with Down syndrome. It aims to protect the Down syndrome community from the stigma associated with selective abortions and to encourage doctors to respond to such diagnoses with care and healing.

The law specifically prohibits physicians from performing abortions if they are aware that a diagnosis of Down syndrome is influencing the decision. Doctors found to be in violation of this law can face felony charges, lose their medical licenses, and be held liable for legal damages. However, it is important to note that the pregnant woman does not face any criminal liability under this law.

The law has been subject to legal challenges, with abortion rights groups and some parents of children with Down syndrome opposing it. They argue that the law infringes on a woman's constitutional right to abortion. On the other hand, anti-abortion groups have praised the law, claiming that it makes Ohio a "safe haven" for unborn babies with Down syndrome.

The debate surrounding Ohio's Down syndrome abortion law highlights the complex issues surrounding abortion rights, parental love, and the doctor-patient relationship. While some argue that the law protects the rights of those with Down syndrome, others believe it restricts a woman's autonomy over her body and medical choices.

Frequently asked questions