Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Permanent Injunction of “Heartbeat” Abortion Ban in Ohio

Client Alert
October 28, 2024

On October 24, 2024, Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Christian Jenkins held that Ohio’s six-week abortion ban (i.e., the “heartbeat” abortion ban) is unconstitutional under the state’s recently adopted reproductive rights amendment.

Ohio’s heartbeat law banned abortion once a heartbeat was detected and as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. The heartbeat law criminalized medical providers who rendered abortion care when a heartbeat was detected; penalties included felony charges, $20,000 fines, medical license suspension and revocation, and civil claims.

Attorney General Dave Yost previously argued that the heartbeat abortion ban could still take effect in Ohio despite passage in November 2023 of an abortion rights constitutional amendment. Judge Jenkins disagreed, holding that Ohio’s constitutional reproductive rights amendment is unambiguous and clearly represents the will of Ohio’s voters. According to Jenkins, the constitutional amendment must be given full effect, and any state laws, including the heartbeat law, that contradict it, must be enjoined.

The practical significance of this ruling is to provide clarity to medical providers regarding their ability to provide women’s health care without facing criminal, civil, or financial penalties, or actions against their license.

If you have questions about the ruling, or Ohio’s reproductive rights amendment, please contact BMD Healthcare Member Daphne Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com  or Attorney Jordan Burdick at jaburdick@bmdllc.com.

HealthcareHealth LawReproductive Health CareAbortion
Client Alert

Enhancing Privacy Protections for Substance Use Disorder Patient Records

February 16, 2024On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) finalized updated rules to 42 CFR Part 2 (“Part 2”) for the protection of Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) patient records. The updated rules reflect the requirement that the Part 2 rules be more closely aligned with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) privacy, breach notification, and enforcement rules as mandated by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020.Client Alert

Columbus, Ohio Ordinance Prohibits Employers from Inquiries into an Applicant’s Salary History

January 30, 2024Effective March 1, 2024, Columbus employers are prohibited from inquiring into an applicant’s salary history. Specifically, the ordinance provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to:Client Alert

The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board’s Latest Batch of Rules: What Providers Should Know

January 26, 2024The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board has introduced new rules and amendments, covering various aspects such as CDCA certificate requirements, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, remote supervision, and reciprocity application requirements. Notable changes include revised criteria for obtaining a CDCA certification, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, and updated ethical obligations for licensees and certificate holders, including non-discrimination, confidentiality, and anti-sexual harassment measures.Client Alert

Governor Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University Introduce the SOAR Study on Ohio Mental Illness

January 22, 2024On January 19, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University announced a new research initiative, the State of Ohio Adversity and Resilience (“SOAR”) study, which will investigate all factors influencing Ohio’s mental illness and addiction epidemic.Client Alert

CHANGING TIDES: Summary and Effects of Burnett et. al. v. National Ass’n of Realtors, et. al.

January 17, 2024In April 2019, a class-action Complaint was filed in federal court for the Western District Court for Missouri arguing that the traditional payment agreements employed by many across the United States amounted to conspiracy resulting in the artificial increase in brokerage commissions. Plaintiffs, a class-action group comprised of sellers, argued that they paid excessive brokerage commissions upon the sale of their home as a result of the customary payment structure where Sellers agree to pay the full commission on the sale of their property, with Seller’s agent notating the portion of commission they are willing to pay to a Buyer’s agent at closing on the MLS or other similar system.
Older posts
Newer posts