Ohio Politicians Push Abortion Restrictions Despite Constitutional Amendment

Lawmakers introduce bills to limit access, despite voters' approval of reproductive rights

Apr. 18, 2026 at 11:34am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A photorealistic painting of an empty Ohio state capitol building, with warm sunlight streaming through the windows and deep shadows cast across the facade, conveying a sense of political tension and division.The ongoing political battle over abortion rights in Ohio continues despite voters' clear support for protecting reproductive freedoms.Toledo Today

Even though Ohio voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment protecting reproductive rights in 2023, state lawmakers continue to push legislation that would restrict access to abortion. Bills have been introduced to implement a 24-hour waiting period, ban abortion entirely, and require schools to show an anti-abortion video, among other measures. A judge is also asking the state Supreme Court to block enforcement of the amendment, claiming it conflicts with judicial authority.

Why it matters

The ongoing efforts by Ohio politicians to limit abortion access despite the clear will of voters highlights the continued political battles over reproductive rights, even in states where the public has expressed support for protecting those rights. The clash between the legislature and the constitutional amendment raises questions about the limits of voter-approved protections and the ability of lawmakers to work around them.

The details

Several bills have been introduced in the Ohio General Assembly that seek to restrict abortion access, including a 24-hour waiting period, a ban on abortion, and requirements for schools to show an anti-abortion video. One bill, HB 347, has already passed the Ohio House. Supporters argue the measures are reasonable regulations, while opponents say they are intended to delay and discourage patients from obtaining abortions. Additionally, a judge in Trumbull County has filed a lawsuit asking the Ohio Supreme Court to block enforcement of the 2023 constitutional amendment, claiming it conflicts with the state's judicial authority.

  • In November 2023, Ohio voters approved a constitutional amendment protecting reproductive rights by a 57% to 43% margin.
  • HB 347, which would implement a 24-hour waiting period, passed the Ohio House in the last voting session before the primary election.

The players

Josh Williams

State Representative (R-Sylvania Township) and sponsor of HB 347, which would implement a 24-hour waiting period for abortion.

Kellie Copeland

Executive Director of Abortion Forward, a pro-choice advocacy group, who criticized the proposed anti-abortion legislation as politically motivated.

Maria Phillis

A fetal and maternal medicine specialist in Cleveland who signed a letter with over 150 other Ohio doctors calling on lawmakers to stop pushing anti-abortion policies.

David Engler

A juvenile court judge in Trumbull County who is running for the Ohio 11th District Court of Appeals and has filed a lawsuit seeking to block enforcement of the 2023 abortion rights amendment.

Carrie Snyder

Executive Director of Ohio Right to Life, an anti-abortion advocacy group, who supports Judge Engler's lawsuit.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“For many of us, we have to face a hard truth — abortion access is recognized as a right under the Ohio Constitution. But contrary to what you hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, voters understood that abortion access needs to be regulated.”

— Josh Williams, State Representative (R-Sylvania Township)

“Decisions surrounding pregnancy, and particularly those involving abortion, carry significant physical, emotional, and psychological considerations. These are not decisions that should be made under pressure, in haste, or without a clear understanding of the risks, alternatives, and available support.”

— Katie DeLand, Director of Policy and Legislative Affairs, Ohio Right to Life

“That would obviously interfere with patients' ability to receive care — particularly Ohioans who already have to travel farther for medical care, can't take time off work or arrange for extra child care, don't have a car, and not to mention can't afford the skyrocketing cost of gas right now. Ohioans want to be able to receive timely, private care. And our state constitution requires that.”

— Maria Phillis, Fetal and Maternal Medicine Specialist

“The goal of this legislation is not to ensure informed consent. It is to make it harder for people to access the care they need.”

— Jaime Miracle, Deputy Director, Abortion Forward

“We tried to warn voters in 2023 that basic parental rights would be stripped by the abortion amendment, but I've talked to many people who did not realize until after the fact that this is indeed true. Parents — and when necessary, a probate judge in their stead — should maintain the ability to be involved with a decision of this magnitude when it involves their underage daughter.”

— Carrie Snyder, Executive Director, Ohio Right to Life

What’s next

The judge's lawsuit seeking to block enforcement of the 2023 abortion rights amendment will be heard by the Ohio Supreme Court.

The takeaway

The ongoing political battle over abortion access in Ohio, even after voters approved a constitutional amendment protecting reproductive rights, highlights the continued partisan divide and the challenges of enshrining voter-approved protections in the face of determined legislative opposition.