Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio v. Hodges, 917 F.3d 908 (6th Cir. 2019)
The case of Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio v. Hodges represents a crucial conflict between state regulatory power and individual constitutional rights.
Whether Ohio's law eliminating state funding for entities that perform or promote non-therapeutic abortions is unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects the right to choose to have an abortion without undue governmental interference, as established in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Additionally, a state cannot impose conditions on public funding that impinge upon constitutional rights, as noted in legal precedents concerning free speech and abortion rights.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Ohio's law was not unconstitutional, reversing the district court's injunction. The court ruled that the state has the right to decide who receives public health funding and that the law did not impose an undue burden on the right to abortion.
This case is significant for law students as it highlights the interaction between state funding decisions and constitutional rights, illustrating how courts balance governmental interests with individual liberties. It underscores the complexity of abortion litigation in the United States and exemplifies the evolving judicial interpretations of the undue burden standard. Moreover, it serves as a contemporary example of how strategic legal challenges are framed in the ongoing debate over reproductive rights.