Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2919 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.17 (2026)

Terminating or attempting to terminate human pregnancy after viability

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
October 20, 2011
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 78 - 129th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) No person shall purposely perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman when the unborn child is viable.

(B)(1) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under division (A) of this section that the abortion was performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced by a physician and that the physician determined, in the physician's good faith medical judgment, based on the facts known to the physician at that time, that either of the following applied:

(a) The unborn child was not viable.

(b) The abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.

(2) No abortion shall be considered necessary under division (B)(1)(b) of this section on the basis of a claim or diagnosis that the pregnant woman will engage in conduct that would result in the pregnant woman's death or a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman or based on any reason related to the woman's mental health.

(C) Except when a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with section 2919.18 of the Revised Code, the affirmative defense set forth in division (B)(1)(a) of this section does not apply unless the physician who performs or induces or attempts to perform or induce the abortion performs the viability testing required by division (A) of section 2919.18 of the Revised Code and certifies in writing, based on the results of the tests performed, that in the physician's good faith medical judgment the unborn child is not viable.

(D) Except when a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with one or more of the following conditions, the affirmative defense set forth in division (B)(1)(b) of this section does not apply unless the physician who performs or induces or attempts to perform or induce the abortion complies with all of the following conditions:

(1) The physician who performs or induces or attempts to perform or induce the abortion certifies in writing that, in the physician's good faith medical judgment, based on the facts known to the physician at that time, the abortion is necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.

(2) Another physician who is not professionally related to the physician who intends to perform or induce the abortion certifies in writing that, in that physician's good faith medical judgment, based on the facts known to that physician at that time, the abortion is necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.

(3) The physician performs or induces or attempts to perform or induce the abortion in a hospital or other health care facility that has appropriate neonatal services for premature infants.

(4) The physician who performs or induces or attempts to perform or induce the abortion terminates or attempts to terminate the pregnancy in the manner that provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive, unless that physician determines, in the physician's good faith medical judgment, based on the facts known to the physician at that time, that the termination of the pregnancy in that manner poses a greater risk of the death of the pregnant woman or a greater risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman than would other available methods of abortion.

(5) The physician certifies in writing the available method or techniques considered and the reasons for choosing the method or technique employed.

(6) The physician who performs or induces or attempts to perform or induce the abortion has arranged for the attendance in the same room in which the abortion is to be performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced at least one other physician who is to take control of, provide immediate medical care for, and take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the life and health of the unborn child immediately upon the child's complete expulsion or extraction from the pregnant woman.

(E) For purposes of this section, there is a rebuttable presumption that an unborn child of at least twenty-four weeks gestational age is viable.

(F) Whoever violates this section is guilty of terminating or attempting to terminate a human pregnancy after viability, a felony of the fourth degree.

(G) The state medical board shall revoke a physician's license to practice medicine in this state if the physician violates this section.

(H) Any physician who performs or induces an abortion or attempts to perform or induce an abortion with actual knowledge that neither of the affirmative defenses set forth in division (B)(1) of this section applies, or with a heedless indifference as to whether either affirmative defense applies, is liable in a civil action for compensatory and exemplary damages and reasonable attorney's fees to any person, or the representative of the estate of any person, who sustains injury, death, or loss to person or property as the result of the performance or inducement or the attempted performance or inducement of the abortion. In any action under this division, the court also may award any injunctive or other equitable relief that the court considers appropriate.

(I) A pregnant woman on whom an abortion is performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced in violation of division (A) of this section is not guilty of violating division (A) of this section or of attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or complicity in committing a violation of division (A) of this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1995–2016 · leading case: Women's Med. Prof'l Corp. v. Voinovich, 911 F. Supp. 1051 (S.D. Ohio 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Women's Med. Prof'l Corp. v. Voinovich, 911 F. Supp. 1051 (S.D. Ohio 1995). · cites it 43× “7 Plaintiff Haskell also has standing to challenge the provisions of the Act which ban post-viability abortions, codified at O.R.C. § 2919.17, and the viability testing requirement in O.”
Jacobson v. Kaforey (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 8434 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 4× “52(B) (“A woman upon whom an abortion is purposely performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced in violation of division (A) of section 2919.17 of the Revised Code has and may commence a civil action for compensatory damages, punitive or exemplary damages * * *…”
Voinovich v. Women's Med. Prof'l Corp., 523 U.S. 1036 (1998). · cites it 3× “” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2919.17 (1996). The District Court enjoined the law as unconstitutional on its face, and a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed.”
Jennie McCormack v. Mark Hiedeman, 694 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2012). “against the patient upon whom the abortion is performed”); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2919.17(I)(expressly excluding women from liability for post-viability abortions); 18 Pa.”
State v. Young, 2011 Ohio 2646 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 8× “Specifically, he argues that charging him with aggravated murder for the death of an unborn child is an Equal Protection violation, alleging that those charged under R.C. 2919.17, the unlawful abortion statute, are similarly situated defendants but are only subject to the…”
Women's Med. Prof'l Corp. v. Voinovich, 130 F.3d 187 (6th Cir. 1997). “The Court reasoned that the ban on post-viability abortions imposes a rebuttable presumption of viability at twenty-four weeks, Ohio Rev Code Ann. § 2919.17(c), and that if plaintiff Haskell is unable to rebut that pre *192 sumption in some cases, the remaining post-viability…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.17(A) — 1 case
Women's Med. Prof'l Corp. v. Voinovich, 911 F. Supp. 1051 (S.D. Ohio 1995). “7 Plaintiff Haskell also has standing to challenge the provisions of the Act which ban post-viability abortions, codified at O.R.C. § 2919.17, and the viability testing requirement in O.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.17(A)(1) — 1 case
Women's Med. Prof'l Corp. v. Voinovich, 911 F. Supp. 1051 (S.D. Ohio 1995). “7 Plaintiff Haskell also has standing to challenge the provisions of the Act which ban post-viability abortions, codified at O.R.C. § 2919.17, and the viability testing requirement in O.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.17(A)(2) — 1 case
Women's Med. Prof'l Corp. v. Voinovich, 911 F. Supp. 1051 (S.D. Ohio 1995). “7 Plaintiff Haskell also has standing to challenge the provisions of the Act which ban post-viability abortions, codified at O.R.C. § 2919.17, and the viability testing requirement in O.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.17(B)(1) — 1 case
Women's Med. Prof'l Corp. v. Voinovich, 911 F. Supp. 1051 (S.D. Ohio 1995). “7 Plaintiff Haskell also has standing to challenge the provisions of the Act which ban post-viability abortions, codified at O.R.C. § 2919.17, and the viability testing requirement in O.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.17(B)(1)(b) — 1 case
Women's Med. Prof'l Corp. v. Voinovich, 911 F. Supp. 1051 (S.D. Ohio 1995). “7 Plaintiff Haskell also has standing to challenge the provisions of the Act which ban post-viability abortions, codified at O.R.C. § 2919.17, and the viability testing requirement in O.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.17(B)(1)(d) — 1 case
Women's Med. Prof'l Corp. v. Voinovich, 911 F. Supp. 1051 (S.D. Ohio 1995). “7 Plaintiff Haskell also has standing to challenge the provisions of the Act which ban post-viability abortions, codified at O.R.C. § 2919.17, and the viability testing requirement in O.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.17(B)(1)(e) — 1 case
Women's Med. Prof'l Corp. v. Voinovich, 911 F. Supp. 1051 (S.D. Ohio 1995). “7 Plaintiff Haskell also has standing to challenge the provisions of the Act which ban post-viability abortions, codified at O.R.C. § 2919.17, and the viability testing requirement in O.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.17(B)(2) — 1 case
Women's Med. Prof'l Corp. v. Voinovich, 911 F. Supp. 1051 (S.D. Ohio 1995). “7 Plaintiff Haskell also has standing to challenge the provisions of the Act which ban post-viability abortions, codified at O.R.C. § 2919.17, and the viability testing requirement in O.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.17(B)(l) — 1 case
Women's Med. Prof'l Corp. v. Voinovich, 911 F. Supp. 1051 (S.D. Ohio 1995). “7 Plaintiff Haskell also has standing to challenge the provisions of the Act which ban post-viability abortions, codified at O.R.C. § 2919.17, and the viability testing requirement in O.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.17(C) — 1 case
Women's Med. Prof'l Corp. v. Voinovich, 911 F. Supp. 1051 (S.D. Ohio 1995). “7 Plaintiff Haskell also has standing to challenge the provisions of the Act which ban post-viability abortions, codified at O.R.C. § 2919.17, and the viability testing requirement in O.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.17(D) — 2 cases
Women's Med. Prof'l Corp. v. Voinovich, 911 F. Supp. 1051 (S.D. Ohio 1995). “7 Plaintiff Haskell also has standing to challenge the provisions of the Act which ban post-viability abortions, codified at O.R.C. § 2919.17, and the viability testing requirement in O.”
State v. Young, 2011 Ohio 2646 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “Specifically, he argues that charging him with aggravated murder for the death of an unborn child is an Equal Protection violation, alleging that those charged under R.C. 2919.17, the unlawful abortion statute, are similarly situated defendants but are only subject to the…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.17(I) — 1 case
Jennie McCormack v. Mark Hiedeman, 694 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2012). “against the patient upon whom the abortion is performed”); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2919.17(I)(expressly excluding women from liability for post-viability abortions); 18 Pa.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.17(c) — 1 case
Women's Med. Prof'l Corp. v. Voinovich, 130 F.3d 187 (6th Cir. 1997). “The Court reasoned that the ban on post-viability abortions imposes a rebuttable presumption of viability at twenty-four weeks, Ohio Rev Code Ann. § 2919.17(c), and that if plaintiff Haskell is unable to rebut that pre *192 sumption in some cases, the remaining post-viability…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.