Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Abortion Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Doctors, researchers and patient advocates urge committee to reject HB 347 waiting-period and required counseling provisions
Summary
A coalition of physicians, public-health researchers and reproductive-rights groups told the Senate Health Committee that House Bill 347 would reintroduce burdensome waiting periods and require medically inaccurate counseling; several witnesses said the bill conflicts with the Ohio Reproductive Freedom Amendment and prior court rulings.
The Senate Health Committee received sustained opposition to House Bill 347, which would reinstate a 24-hour waiting period and mandate specific counseling and informational requirements for patients seeking abortion care. Witnesses included clinicians, a reproductive epidemiologist and representatives of advocacy organizations.
Robert Hood, a reproductive health epidemiologist, testified that the bill misstates risk and that abortion is safer than continuing pregnancy; he cited state statistics indicating low complication rates and urged the committee not to permit a policy that increases delay without improving care. "This bill does not and will not achieve that purpose," he said, noting statistical comparisons between abortion and pregnancy risks.
Clinicians told the committee the bill would force medical professionals to provide information the clinicians consider medically inaccurate. Dr. Elise Berlin, a practicing physician, said, "Abortion reversal is not a thing," and warned that requiring clinicians to tell patients about an unproven reversal procedure would be unethical and could harm patients. Physicians and trainees said informed consent is already a legal and ethical obligation, and that a one-size-fits-all state script would interfere with individualized clinical judgment.
Advocacy groups including Ohio Women's Alliance and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Ohio said the bill would impose logistical and financial burdens that fall disproportionately on low-income, rural and marginalized patients. They argued the state constitution's Reproductive Freedom Amendment constrains the legislature from imposing such burdens without narrowly tailored, evidence-based justification.
Committee members asked witnesses about the balance between providing information and imposing delays; witnesses responded that mandatory waiting periods typically do not change decisions but can create additional hardship and medical risk. No vote on HB 347 occurred at the hearing.
The hearing record contains a large volume of written testimony from health systems and providers; opponents urged the committee to decline HB 347 and to rely on existing clinical informed-consent processes rather than statutory scripts.
