To amend sections 2305.11 and 2307.46 and to enact section 2317.58 of the Revised Code to enact the Share the Health and Empower With Informed Notices (SHE WINS) Act regarding abortion informed consent.
HB347, the "Share the Health and Empower With Informed Notices (SHE WINS) Act," would create a new abortion informed-consent framework in Ohio law and revise related civil-liability and confidentiality provisions. The bill requires that, at least 24 hours before an elective abortion, a physician meet with the patient and provide specified information about the procedure, risks, alternatives such as adoption and parenting, pregnancy-related medical risks, available public assistance, child-support obligations in some cases, and the possibility of reversing abortion-inducing drugs. The patient must then sign a written informed-consent form certifying that the information was received and understood.
The bill also creates a new civil cause of action for violations of these informed-consent requirements, with statutory damages of at least $100,000 per claim, plus compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and attorney’s fees, and it allows additional injunctive relief. It sets a one-year limitations period for abortion-related civil actions, permits confidentiality protections for the woman in related civil cases, and directs the Ohio Supreme Court and State Medical Board to adopt implementing rules. The bill states that performing an abortion without meeting the new informed-consent conditions is not itself a criminal violation under the referenced abortion statute, but it can trigger civil liability and professional discipline.
In practical terms, the bill would significantly expand state regulation of abortion counseling and documentation, and it would expose physicians and potentially other actors to substantial civil damages for noncompliance. It also amends existing statutes governing limitations periods and confidentiality in abortion-related litigation, and it expressly supersedes conflicting provisions of current informed-consent law. The bill would affect abortion providers, patients seeking elective abortions, courts handling related civil actions, and the State Medical Board.
The overall sentiment reflected in the legislative history is mixed but leans supportive in the House process, as shown by favorable committee passage and a House floor vote of 64-32. That said, the vote margins indicate meaningful opposition. Because no committee transcript is available, the specific arguments are not recorded here, but the structure of the bill suggests the main support likely centers on informed consent and patient disclosure, while the main criticism likely concerns abortion access, physician liability, and the bill’s broad damages provisions.
The most notable points of contention are the mandatory 24-hour counseling requirement, the inclusion of information about abortion reversal and child support, the large statutory damages award, and the bill’s allowance of civil suits by "interested parties" beyond the patient herself in some circumstances. The confidentiality provisions for the woman and the bill’s treatment of medical emergencies may also be contested, along with whether the measure is a health-and-consent law or a broader abortion restriction by another name.
HB347 would amend Ohio Revised Code sections 2305.11 and 2307.46 and enact new section 2317.58, creating a detailed abortion informed-consent regime and new civil enforcement mechanisms. It would shorten and specify the limitations period for abortion-related civil actions, add confidentiality procedures for related litigation, authorize damages and attorney’s fees for violations, and require rulemaking by the Supreme Court and State Medical Board. The bill would directly affect abortion providers, patients, and civil courts, while also altering how abortion-related informed-consent disputes are litigated under state law.
The available voting history suggests the bill had enough support to advance through committee and pass the House, but not without substantial opposition. A 9-4 favorable committee vote and a 64-32 House passage indicate a generally favorable majority view among supporters, while the size of the no votes shows the measure remained controversial. With no transcript excerpts available, the record here does not capture detailed debate, but the bill’s subject matter strongly suggests the divide centered on abortion regulation versus access and provider liability.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s abortion-specific informed-consent requirements, especially the 24-hour waiting period, the mandated disclosures about risks, alternatives, public benefits, child support, and abortion reversal for medication abortions. Opponents would likely object to the bill’s steep statutory damages, expanded civil standing for "interested parties," and the potential chilling effect on providers. Supporters, by contrast, would frame the bill as ensuring informed decision-making and patient protection. The confidentiality provisions and emergency exceptions may also be debated, but the largest dispute appears to be whether the bill is a consumer-information measure or an additional barrier to abortion care.