NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 09a0539n.06 Nos. 06-4422, 06-4423 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

PL ANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTHWEST OHI O REGI ON; PL ANNED PARENTHOOD O F NORTHEAST OHI O; PL ANNED PARENTHOOD O F CENTRAL OHI O; PRETERM; DR. ROSL YN KA DE ; AN D DR

. L ASZ L O SO GO R, P lai nt iffs- App e lle e s,

v. TED STRI CKL AND, Gover nor of the State of Ohio, Defendan t, RI CHARD CORDRAY, Attorney Gene ral of O hio, and J OSEPH T. DE TE RS, H a mil ton

County P r o s e c u t i n g A t t o r

n e y, De fend ant s- App e lla nt s.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E SO UT HE RN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

O R D E R

Be for e : M OORE, R OG ER S, a nd M c KEA G UE , C ir c uitJudg e s. KA REN NELSO N MOORE, Circ uit Jud ge. This case involves the constitutionality of Ohio Revised Code (“O .R.C.”) § 2919.123, which regulates the use of mifeprist o n e t o p ro vide medical a bortions. In 2004 the di strict court iss ued a preliminary injunction because it found that the statute lac ked a he alth exception. Plan ne d P ar e nth oo d Ci nc inn ati Re gio n v . Ta ft , 337 F. Supp.Nos. 06-4422, 06-4423 - 2 - 2d 1040 (S.D. Ohio 2004). We va cate d the injunction in part and re manded to the district cour t for fu rt he r c on sid e ratio n of the br e a dth of the inj un c tio n and of the oth e r argume nts ra ise d b y the pa rt ie s. Plan ne d P ar e nth oo d Ci nc inn ati Re gio n v. Taf

t , 444 F.3d 502 ( 6th Cir. 2006). On rema nd, the district court gra

nted s ummary judgme nt and a permane nt injunction in favor of plaintiffs ba sed on i t s co n cl u s i o nt h at § 2 9 1 9

. 1 2 3 wa s u n co n s t i tu t ionally vag ue. P la n n e d

Pa r e n th o o d

Cinc innati Region

v . Ta ft , 459 F. Supp. 2d 626 (S.D. Ohio 2006). On appea l f

rom the perma

nent injunction, we issued an order cer tify ing two questions to the Ohio Supreme Court: “(1) Does O.R.C

. § 2919.123 mandate that phy sicians in Ohio who per form abortions using mifepristone do so in c ompliance with the forty -nine-da y g estational limit described in the FDA approva l letter? ” and ( 2) “D oes O.R.C. § 2919.123 mandate that phy sicians in Ohio who p er fo rm ab o rt i o n s u s i n g m i fe p ri s t o n e do s o i n co mp l i an ce wi t h t h e t re at m en tp ro t o co l s an d d o s age indications descr ibed in the drug ’s final printed la beling ? ” Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region v. Strickland , 531 F.3d 406 ( 6th Cir. 2008). The Ohio Supreme Court recently answe red both of these c ertified que stions. Cordray v. Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region , Slip Op. No. 2009- Ohio-2972. I n l i gh t of this opinion by the Ohio Supreme Court, we VA CA TE the per manent i n j u nction issued by

the district court. The preliminary injunction that we AF F IR M ED in part

rema ins in force as per

our pre vious opinion. Se e Taf t , 444 F.3d at 518. We REMAND the c a se to the district court for

consideration of the Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion as we ll as issues identified in our previous re mand and a ny other issues that the pa

rties may raise.