The ACLU of Ohio, which challenged the law on behalf of two Ohio families with transgender children, said it will immediately appeal Tuesday’s decision.
“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,” said ACLU of Ohio Legal Director Freda Levenson in a statement. “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.”
The plaintiffs in the case alleged that H.B. 68 was unconstitutional on four counts, including against an Ohio Constitution provision that requires all legislation be confined to only one subject. Tuesday’s decision went against the plaintiffs and in favor of the state in all four instances.
In his ruling, Republican Judge Michael Holbrook wrote that, while it may seem as though H.B. 68 contains two separate subjects at first glance, the matters of medical care restrictions and school sports participation restrictions are indeed related by “the General Assembly’s regulation of transgender individuals.”
“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,” Holbrook wrote. “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.”
Lawyers with the ACLU also argued that the bill goes against the Ohio Constitution’s provision that preserves “the freedom to choose health care and health care coverage.” Holbrook ruled that because the state views gender affirming care as wrongdoing, and because the constitution “unequivocally provides that its provisions do not affect laws calculated to punish wrongdoing in the health care industry,” the bill can go into effect.
Ultimately, Holbrook ruled that the state had a vested interest in regulating the kind of medical care transgender minors in Ohio can receive.
“The medical care banned carries with it undeniable risk and permanent outcomes,” Holbrook wrote. “Indeed, countries once confident in the administration of gender affirming care to minors are now reversing their position as a result of the significant inconsistencies in results and potential side effects of the care. Thus, there can be no doubt that the Health Care Ban is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.”
Shortly after the ruling, Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost released a statement applauding the 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,” wrote Bethany McCorkle, communications director for the AG’s office. “The law doesn’t say ‘no’ forever; it simply says ‘not now’ while the child is still growing.”
The bill, set to go into immediate effect, contains a grandfather clause that allows Ohio minors already receiving gender affirming medical care such as hormone blockers or cross sex hormones to continue their treatment.
The law had been stalled while the trial was ongoing, which allowed some transgender minors to begin receiving care, which Dara Adkison, executive director at TransOhio, characterized as a positive outcome of the case.
For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It’s free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening.
Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.
About the Author
