Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Legal Uncertainties Remain Following Passage of Issue 1 in Ohio

Client Alert
December 11, 2023

In the November 2023 General Election, Ohio voters passed Issue 1 which, among other things, “[e]stablish[es] in the Constitution of the State of Ohio  an individual right to one’s own reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited  to abortion”. Despite passage of Issue 1, questions persist about how its codification on December 7 affects previously passed legislation restricting abortion and related pending court cases.

On the day the ballot measure became effective, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said that Ohio’s new constitutional right to reproductive decisions overrides the state’s ban on most abortions (the previously passed “Heartbeat Law"), but that the state’s appeal of a lower court’s decision to pause enforcement of the Heartbeat Law should go forward.

On September 2, 2022, in Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, five groups, including the American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU) of Ohio, filed a lawsuit in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court seeking to block enforcement of the Heartbeat Law. The Hamilton County Common Pleas Court held that abortion is a “fundamental right” and that the Heartbeat Law violates that right. The court issued a preliminary injunction in October 2022, preventing enforcement of the Heartbeat Law.

In response, Ohio Attorney General Yost appealed the preliminary injunction to the First District Court of Appeals, which ultimately dismissed the case. Yost appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, asking the court to rule on two important issues:

  1. Can preliminary injunctions that restrict state law be appealed by the state?
  2. Because Ohio courts lack jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief to parties who lack standing, can third parties (e.g., abortion clinics) challenge state laws (in this case, the Heartbeat Law)?

Following passage of Issue 1, the Ohio Supreme Court asked both sides to file new briefs that address the impact of Issue 1 on the case pending before it. In Attorney General Yost’s brief, he argued that the law itself is not at issue, but rather the two procedural issues described above. In his brief, Yost indicated that, substantively, Issue 1 overrides the Heartbeat Law.

In its brief submitted on behalf of the Appellees, the ACLU of Ohio argues that Issue 1 renders the Heartbeat Law unenforceable and that Yost’s prior appeal of the 2022 preliminary injunction of that law is moot, rendering the case unable to proceed. According to the brief, because the State cannot be harmed by being prevented from enforcing a law that Attorney General Yost admits violates the Ohio Constitution, there is no harm for the State to allege.

While the Supreme Court of Ohio considers both briefs, many providers of reproductive health care in Ohio are waiting on concrete legal guidance before they stop following Ohio's current abortion restrictions, including requiring patients to wait 24 hours after an initial appointment to have an abortion. The Supreme Court of Ohio’s ruling on the procedural issues stemming from Issue 1 should clarify the new legal boundaries for providers.

If you have questions about the content of this Client Alert, or the passage of Issue 1, please feel free to reach out to BMD Member Daphne Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com or BMD Partner Ashley Watson at abwatson@bmdllc.com.

Issue 1AbortionReproductive Health CareAshley WatsonDaphne Kackloudis
Client Alert

Ramping Up – A Quick Guide to Pressing COVID-19 Employment Law Issues

November 19, 2020As the country continues to grapple with a global pandemic that now seems to be never-ending, businesses everywhere are waking up to realize that the calming of the COVID-19 employment issues over the summer has come to an end. As cases rise exponentially in all 50 states as we head into the winter months, the number of employment issues related to COVID-19 will also increase dramatically. For these reasons, it is important that we return to the employment law basics that were covered this prior spring, while highlighting the many lessons we have learned along the way. As COVID-19 matters and concerns continue to hinder the working environment of every business, it is important that you reference this review to guide you through these tough issues and questions.Client Alert

Your Workplace Under Biden

November 9, 2020This is my favorite recurring post – Predictions of How a New Administration Will Affect Your Workplace. Four years ago, we accurately called the emasculation of the 2016 proposed FLSA Overtime Rules (the salary exemption threshold was set at $35,568 in 2019, rather than $47,476 as proposed), we forecasted a conservative shift of the NLRB and its results (a roll-back of employee rights, social media policy evaluations, and joint employer rules), and we nailed the likelihood of multiple conservative appointments to the United States Supreme Court and its long-term effects (although I completely failed to predict that my ND classmate Amy Coney Barrett would fill the final vacancy during the Trump administration). This time, the L+E Practice of BMD has decided to make it a group effort at predicting what will happen, what probably happen, and what might happen under President Biden. As always, please save this in your important files and pull it out four (or eight) years from now to judge our accuracy.Client Alert

HHS Provider Relief Funds Reporting Requirements: Important Updates Every Provider Should Know

November 4, 2020HHS continues to revise its reporting requirements for the use of the Provider Relief Funds. Providers with more than $10,000 in Provider Relief Fund payments must report on the use of the funds through December 31, 2020. The reporting window will begin on January 15, 2021 and providers must complete reporting obligations for FY 2020 by February 15, 2021 through a portal designed by HHS. However, providers that have unexpended funds as of December 31, 2020, will have an additional 6 months to use the remaining funds through June 30, 2021. These providers must submit a second and final report no later than July 31, 2021.Client Alert

Should I Apply for Phase 3 Funds? Important Considerations Every Provider Should Know

November 2, 2020On October 1, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced an additional $20 billion in new funding for providers through a Phase 3 distribution. Importantly, providers that previously received HHS Provider Relief Funds or already received payments of approximately 2% of annual revenue from patient care are eligible to apply. Eligible providers have until November 6, 2020 to apply for these Phase 3 Funds. However, the question from providers continues to be: Should I Apply for Phase 3 Funds?Client Alert

CISA Ransomware Practices

October 29, 2020On October 28, 2020, the United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued an alert warning of imminent threats to US hospitals and healthcare providers. The specific threat involves RYUK Ransomware attacks. RYUK is a novel ransomware that goes undetected by commercial anti-virus/malware detection programs. Once deployed, RYUK encrypts all data and disables systems. In short, it cripples all functionality down to phone systems and automated doors. Healthcare providers should alert their employees to remain hyper-vigilant and report any suspicious activity seen in email or on networks. It has been reported healthcare providers in New York, Pennsylvania and Oregon have been targeted in the last 48 hours. If your organization encounters issues, BMD can assist in mobilizing a response team and has contacts with forensic IT firms that are familiar with RYUK. It is advisable to engage professionals with experience dealing with this specific threat.
Older posts
Newer posts