Trending
It wasn't a surprise that the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed Trumbull County Domestic Relations/Juvenile Division Judge David L. Engler's lawsuit seeking to stop abortions in the state, but the justices could have at least explained why.
Instead, the justice ruled 7-0 Aug. 19 that the state's "motion to dismiss is granted. Accordingly, this case is dismissed."
Besides that, the court's four-sentence entry declared that the matter originated with it and the American Civil Liberties Union's motion to have more time to file a brief in support of the motion to dismiss was granted. With the case dismissed that is moot.
The justices sided with the state -- Engler in his April 14 lawsuit sued Secretary of State Frank LaRose, then-Attorney General Dave Yost and the Ohio Ballot Board -- which sought the dismissal of the case on a number of grounds. Engler, LaRose and Yost are all pro-life Republicans.
In a May 11 motion, Julie Pfeiffer, an assistant attorney general, wrote Engler's lawsuit should be dismissed as he "lacks standing because he has not alleged an injury that is fairly traceable to the conduct of any of the respondents."
Pfeiffer also sought dismissal of the case, stating the court lacks "jurisdiction over claims for declaratory and injunctive relief," which Engler sought. Engler doesn't have any clear legal right to judicial-bypass hearings -- and if he does, the constitutional amendment "prevails over any conflicting statute," "any claim related to the ballot language for the amendment is untimely," and the required affidavit he filed doesn't comply with the high court's rules of practice.
Did the court agree with all of her arguments, some of them or just one?
As this is not the last case the Supreme Court, which is dominated by pro-life Republicans, will hear on challenging the 2023 constitutional amendment legalizing abortions, the justices owe it to the state to detail what was wrong with Engler's lawsuit.
Engler contended the constitutional amendment eliminated guardrails for minors -- specifically removing parental consent as well as effectively removing a state law that gives juvenile court judges, such as himself, the authority to grant abortions to those under 18 years of age if petitioned through a judicial-bypass hearing. Engler argued that people weren't aware that minors could obtain abortions without parental or judicial consent when they voted on it.
Engler could only speculate on the court's decision.
He said: "From the judicial perspective, it might not be me who has standing, but a parent who has standing."
As I wrote in an April 24 column, Engler presented an interesting argument, but it was going to be challenging for him to win the case.
The right to an abortion in Ohio took effect in December 2023, a month after a reproductive rights constitutional amendment was approved by 57% of voters.
There are other lawsuits regarding abortions in Ohio.
A pro-life group contends the constitutional amendment illegally modified various parts of state law. That one is also going to be challenging to win as the Ohio Constitution trumps state law.
Kellie Copeland, executive director of Abortion Forward, said: "Ohioans have had enough of the attacks on abortion care by people who want to control us. Judge Engler is just one of the many anti-abortion extremists that should be following the Ohio Constitution, but instead are ignoring the will of the voters and do not respect us and our constitutionally protected right to reproductive freedom. The freedom to define our own path in life and safely care for our families is vital to all of us."
Copeland added: "We know these attacks will not stop, so neither will we. We're going to keep fighting and voting to ensure everyone can make their own reproductive decisions without shame, stigma or delay."
Carrie Snyder, executive director of Ohio Right to Life, said: "While we are disappointed that Judge Engler's challenge didn't move forward, we were aware that the premise might not find a footing with the court. This was simply a procedural decision and had nothing to do with the actual issue of abortion. We know that eventually there will be a legal challenge that makes its way to the Ohio Supreme Court so that it can define what the words of the amendment actually mean."
Snyder said: "We are looking for the court to provide a road map and clarity about the abortion amendment. We know that the majority of Ohioans do not support abortion on demand for any reason and we look forward to a court decision that will allow us to protect women's health as well as innocent lives of babies in our state."
NOTE: I will be on vacation next week so I won't be writing a column.
David Skolnick covers politics for the Tribune Chronicle and The Vindicator.