Planned Parenthood, et al v. Strickland, et alAnnotate this Case
This is a revision of a Previous Opinion originally issued on June 23, 2008.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 09a0539n.06 Nos. 06-4422, 06-4423 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LEONARD GREEN, Clerk Aug 06, 2009 PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTHWEST OHIO REGION; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF NORTHEAST OHIO; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL OHIO; PRETERM; DR. ROSLYN KADE; AND DR. LASZLO SOGOR, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) v. ) ) TED STRICKLAND, Governor of the ) State of Ohio, ) ) ) Defendant, ) RICHARD CORDRAY, Attorney ) General of Ohio, and JOSEPH T. ) DETERS, Hamilton County ) Prosecuting Attorney, ) ) ) Defendants-Appellants. _______________________________________) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ORDER Before: MOORE, ROGERS, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges. KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. This case involves the constitutionality of Ohio Revised Code (â O.R.C.â ) Â§ 2919.123, which regulates the use of mifepristone to provide medical abortions. In 2004 the district court issued a preliminary injunction because it found that the statute lacked a health exception. Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region v. Taft, 337 F. Supp. Nos. 06-4422, 06-4423 -22d 1040 (S.D. Ohio 2004). We vacated the injunction in part and remanded to the district court for further consideration of the breadth of the injunction and of the other arguments raised by the parties. Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region v. Taft, 444 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2006). On remand, the district court granted summary judgment and a permanent injunction in favor of plaintiffs based on its conclusion that Â§ 2919.123 was unconstitutionally vague. Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region v. Taft, 459 F. Supp. 2d 626 (S.D. Ohio 2006). On appeal from the permanent injunction, we issued an order certifying two questions to the Ohio Supreme Court: â (1) Does O.R.C. Â§ 2919.123 mandate that physicians in Ohio who perform abortions using mifepristone do so in compliance with the forty-nine-day gestational limit described in the FDA approval letter?â and (2) â Does O.R.C. Â§ 2919.123 mandate that physicians in Ohio who perform abortions using mifepristone do so in compliance with the treatment protocols and dosage indications described in the drugâ s final printed labeling?â Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region v. Strickland, 531 F.3d 406 (6th Cir. 2008). The Ohio Supreme Court recently answered both of these certified questions. Cordray v. Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region, Slip Op. No. 2009Ohio-2972. In light of this opinion by the Ohio Supreme Court, we VACATE the permanent injunction issued by the district court. The preliminary injunction that we AFFIRMED in part remains in force as per our previous opinion. See Taft, 444 F.3d at 518. We REMAND the case to the district court for consideration of the Ohio Supreme Courtâ s opinion as well as issues identified in our previous remand and any other issues that the parties may raise.