Ohio courts still mulling reproductive rights cases, one set to extend into 2026
Ohioans are still awaiting the resolution of two different cases related to reproductive rights in the state.
A resolution won’t come until at least next year for the case of Brittany Watts, a Warren resident who was criminally charged after she miscarried at her home, following multiple trips to the hospital.
She is suing the city of Warren, the hospital and law enforcement in U.S. District Court.
And, while an Ohio appeals court has heard the arguments on both sides of the state’s appeal on abortion regulations — originally stemming from a six-week abortion ban that was overturned — a decision as to whether parts of the law not related to the six-week ban will stand.
Brittany Watts
For Watts, it may be next September before she has an answer as to whether hospital staff and law enforcement in Warren County violated her rights by reporting a crime, resulting in charges of abuse of a corpse.
The charges that were rejected by a grand jury.
The lawsuit will be a year old as of January 2026, though it’s seen changes and activity throughout the year.
Watts wants compensation for what her attorneys argue are violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment, plus a federal law that gives anyone the right to emergency treatment regardless of insurance or ability to pay.
She’s suing St. Joseph Warren Hospital in Youngstown, the parent company Bon Secours Mercy Health, the city of Warren, and police officers from the city.
In the lawsuit, Watts said not only were her constitutional rights violated, but the staff “committed medical negligence, inflicted severe emotional distress and deprived her of her liberty without probable cause, among other misconduct.”
The story began when Watts said she went to the hospital for care during her pregnancy, where she waited a total of 18 hours over the course of two days, court documents state.
The first night she left after eight hours and “no meaningful treatment or guidance,” according to her attorneys.
The second day she was told her pregnancy was “doomed” and she was at risk of severe and life-threatening complications, but still was “effectively untreated.”
She left and suffered a miscarriage in her bathroom, before returning to the hospital.
It was at that point that she said hospital staff reported her and she was questioned by investigators who indicated that Watts had “birthed a live baby and hidden it ‘in a cabinet.’”
Since initially filing the lawsuit, attorneys have asked the court to add more hospital staff as parties to the lawsuit, including a staff member in risk management and a police officer, who Watts and her attorneys say advised a nurse, leading to her to “falsely report that (Watts) had committed a crime.”
The most recent documents in the case argue hospital staff and police officers knew Watts hadn’t committed a crime, but “saw to it that she would face criminal charges for having an experience shared by hundreds of thousands of women every year.”
All the parties named in the lawsuit have denied any wrongdoing, though the hospital has acknowledged to the court that Watts was told the fetus was “too early from a gestational age for any reasonable chance of survival,” that a doctor recommended that labor be induced, and that a delay could increase the risk of complications.
A jury trial has been scheduled in the case for Sept. 14, 2026, while document deadlines in the case range from Jan. 23 to June 1 of next year.
State abortion regulations
Meanwhile, an answer could come at any time in the case of an Ohio appeal fighting for regulations that were attached to a struck down six-week abortion ban.
The First District Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the case in September, after a Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge struck down the law that established the six-week abortion ban last October.
A key factor in the common pleas decision was a constitutional amendment passed by 57% of Ohio voters in 2023, that enshrined abortion care, including miscarriage care, into the Ohio Constitution.
The law at issue in the appeal was passed in 2019, eliminating abortions past six weeks of gestation.
It also included other provisions related to abortion record-keeping and specific punishments for failing to check for cardiac activity before an abortion.
Ohio Deputy Solicitor General Stephen Carney argued that the other provisions in the law outside of the ban on abortions at six weeks were “severable,” meaning they could act independently from the struck-down law.
He said if the appeals court struck down the entire law, including those provisions, it would be “doing something radical that no one has ever done before,” and consequences would ripple out to review of other laws.
Cassie Mitchell, who represented the women’s health clinics that sued the state to strike down the law, said the provisions are directly related to the six-week abortion ban, and therefore should go as well, as they exist to “clarify the scope of the ban.”
Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.