Rogers v. Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region

893 N.E.2d 512, 119 Ohio St. 3d 1440
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided September 10, 2008·No. 2008-1234·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Certified Questions of State Law, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Nos. 06-4422 and 06-1423. On review of preliminary memoranda pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XVIII(6). The court will answer the following questions:

1) Does R.C. 2919.123 mandate that physicians in Ohio who perform abortions using mifepristone do so in compliance with the forty-nine-day gestational limit described in the FDA approval letter?

2) Does R.C. 2919.123 mandate that physicians in Ohio who perform abortions using mifepristone do so in compliance with the treatment protocols and dosage indications described in the drug’s final printed labeling?

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.

Motions for admission pro hac vice of Roger K. Evans and Helene K. Krasnoff by Jennifer L. Branch granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Rogers v. Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region, 893 N.E.2d 512, 119 Ohio St. 3d 1440 (Ohio 2008).

893 N.E.2d 512 (Rogers v. Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cordray v. Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region
2009 Ohio 2972 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2009)