Ohio judge upholds state ban on gender-affirming care for trans minors

Yesterday, a judge upheld an Ohio gender-affirming care ban targeting minors, immediately restricting care for thousands of youth across the state.

Freda Levenson, legal director at the ACLU of Ohio, said in a statement, “This loss is not just devastating for our brave clients, but for the many transgender youth and their families across the state who require this critical, life-saving health care. While this decision by the court is a genuine setback, it is not the end of the road in our fight to secure the constitutional rights of transgender youth, as well as all Ohioans’ right to bodily autonomy. We are appealing immediately.”

Related:

New regulations could force trans Ohioans like me to detransition. I’m terrified.

It’s not too late to fight back. If you care about trans lives, please say something.

Judge Michael Holbrook of Franklin County Common Pleas Court ruled that, of the four legal arguments made in the lawsuit Moe v. Yost, none were sufficient to justify overturning H.B. 68, the sweeping legislation that enacts a full ban on gender-affirming care for those under the age of 18. Additionally, it prevents transgender girls from participating on girls’ sports teams in high school and college.

Stay connected to your community

Connect with the issues and events that impact your community at home and beyond by subscribing to our newsletter.

Daily

Weekly

Good News

The ACLU had argued that the law was illegal on four terms – that it violated the state’s constitutional requirement that legislation focus on a single topic, that it violated equal protection clauses for non-discrimination, that it unfairly limits parents’ rights to make decisions about their kids’ medical care, and that it violates healthcare freedom.

On the Single Subject Rule, Holbrook had said that both the gender-affirming care ban and the sports ban in the law constitute a single subject – namely, restricting the rights of trans people.

He wrote, “The law compels this Court to conclude that the Act contains a common purpose or relationship; namely, the General Assembly’s regulation of transgender individuals. No matter how abhorrent that may be to some, it is a ‘legitimate subject’ for purposes of the Single Subject Rule under the laws of the State of Ohio at this time.”

“The recourse for those who object is not within the Court but is instead with their vote,” he continued.

Holbrook then argued that the equal protection clause was void because Ohio has a “legitimate interest” in “protecting” its citizens, which also extends to his argument for healthcare freedom. A form of this argument also extends to his argument about parental rights to make decisions about youth healthcare.

H.B. 68 originally passed the legislature in December 2023 and was vetoed by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine in January of this year. DeWine then implemented severe restrictions on gender-affirming care for both minors and adults, which were eventually whittled down to minor regulations on reporting practices for medical professionals.

However, the Republican-led legislature, spearheaded by notorious anti-trans politician state Rep. Gary Click, also overturned DeWine’s veto in January. H.B. 68 was given three months to be enacted.

The Ohio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union then sued the state attorney general, David Yost, on behalf of families who were negatively affected by this ban.

Yost’s office issued a statement celebrating this decision. “The Attorney General applauds the trial court’s decision. This case has always been about the legislature’s authority to enact a law to protect our children from making irreversible medical and surgical decisions about their bodies. The law doesn’t say ‘no’ forever; it simply says ‘not now’ while the child is still growing.”

Harper Seldin, Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU, said in a statement, “This is a devastating result for our clients and families like theirs across the state of Ohio. HB 68’s ban on medical treatments for gender dysphoria remains medically baseless and genuinely dangerous to the current and future well-being of transgender youth in the state. We are particularly appalled the court claims the ‘regulation of transgender individuals’ is a legitimate subject for the legislature under the state constitution.”

“Make no mistake–this fight is not over.”

Don't forget to share: