Before Ohio lawmakers head for a lengthy summer break, a measure to institute a 24-hour waiting period prior to an abortion is up for further consideration in the Ohio Senate.

The measure at issue would reinstitute a previous provision in state law, despite a state court barring enforcement of it after voters passed an Ohio Constitutional amendment protecting reproductive rights.

Ohio House Bill 347 would require pregnant individuals to meet with a medical professional at least 24 hours before an abortion procedure.

Physicians are required to provide informed consent information at that appointment, under threat of civil penalties for violations of the bill.

The measure would authorize the Ohio State Medical Board to create rules “specifying adverse physical or psychological conditions arising from abortion that a physician must disclose as possible complications” when meeting with a pregnant person.

The board only includes one OB/GYN among its membership. The president of the board is a dermatologist, and the vice president is a podiatrist.

Other medical professionals on the board have specialities in pulmonology, pediatrics, orthopedic surgery, spinal treatments, and internal medicine.

The other three members of the board are attorneys, including Michael Gonidakis, who is a former leader and current member of the anti-abortion group Ohio Right to Life.

The Senate Health Committee will hear from supporters in their hearing scheduled for Wednesday.

Those who want to see the bill passed argue the bill does not stop abortions from happening, which would fly in the face of a constitutional amendment passed by 57% of Ohio voters in 2023 enshrining abortion and other reproductive health rights into the state’s constitution.

Bill advocates claim the measure is focused on providing necessary information to pregnant individuals before they have an abortion.

Opponents of the bill, including abortion rights groups, say not only that the bill is duplicative — in that medical professionals are already required based on their medical training and oaths to provide evidence-based information to patients about the procedures and the risks that could come from them — but also that a 24-hour waiting period has already been put into Ohio law once.

Since then, the law has been blocked from enforcement in the midst of a lawsuit.

In 2024, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge David C. Young placed a 24-hour waiting period on pause, citing the newest amendment to the constitution as reason to hold off on the requirement.

“The plain language of the amendment clearly sets forth the applicable legal standard,” Young wrote in 2024. “This language is easily understood and clear.”

H.B. 347 left the Ohio House Health Committee in March as opponents yelled “shame,” passing along party lines in the committee. A full Ohio House vote moved it on to the Ohio Senate with a party-line split of 64 to 32.

During discussion on the House floor before the measure was passed, one co-sponsor of the bill, state Rep. Mike Odioso, R-Cincinnati, said the temporary pause on the previous 24-hour waiting period “had the effect of undermining long-standing established legislation under Ohio’s general informed consent law.”

He went on to claim the ruling “creates uncertainty’ for patients and providers and “disrupts the long-standing legal framework that has protected women’s health across the state.”

Abortion rights groups who spoke out against the bill had the opposite opinion, saying implementing a 24-hour waiting period before medical care creates barriers to access, impacting low-income Ohioans, those without reliable transportation to get to and from appointments, and those in need of child care for other children while they are seeking care.

In the 2025 annual abortion report released by the Ohio Department of Health, 35% of those who had abortions that year already had two or more children, and 24% had one child before they sought an abortion.

“A state-mandated 24-hour waiting period will harm patients by creating additional barriers to care and increasing costs of the procedure,” Jaime Miracle, deputy director of the advocacy group Abortion Forward, said after the House committee passed the bill on for a full chamber vote.

She said those issues were “a feature, not a flaw” for anti-abortion lawmakers in crafting legislation to regulate the practice.

When the bill entered the Senate Health Committee on May 20, state Rep. Josh Williams, R-Sylvania Twp., denied arguments that the bill would create obstacles to care, saying it would “ensure that when a woman is facing one of the most difficult decisions of her life, she is empowered with clarity, time, and honest medical information.”

“She should not be used, or pressured into a decision and she will not be uninformed in the state of Ohio,” he said in testimony to the committee.

The Ohio Senate Health Committee is scheduled to hear supporter testimony on the bill on Wednesday.