Ohio ban on gender-affirming care for minors upheld by judge
2024.08.06 16:57
By Brendan Pierson
(Reuters) – An Ohio judge on Tuesday upheld a Republican-backed state law banning gender-affirming care such as puberty blockers and hormones for transgender minors, rebuffing a challenge by families of transgender adolescents.
The ruling by Judge Michael Holbrook of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas came after a non-jury trial last month. Holbrook had previously blocked the law from taking effect while he heard the case.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost welcomed the decision, spokesperson Bethany McCorkle said in a statement.
“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,” McCorkle said.
The American Civil Liberties Union and its Ohio chapter, which represent the plaintiffs, said that they would appeal.
“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 healthcare,” ACLU of Ohio Legal Director Freda Levenson said in a statement.
Ohio’s Republican-controlled legislature passed the law in January, making the state one of at least 22 to restrict gender-affirming care for minors.
The vote overrode the veto of Governor Mike DeWine, a Republican who said he made his decision after hearing from parents of transgender youth that gender-affirming care had been lifesaving for their children.
The families challenging it argued that it ran afoul of a 2011 amendment to the state constitution, which said that no state law could prohibit Ohioans from purchasing healthcare.
Holbrook said that the amendment did not stop the state from banning wrongdoing by healthcare providers, and that the state had determined that gender-affirming care is wrongdoing. The judge wrote that “the remedy for those who object … cannot be found within the judicial system but is instead with their vote.”
The judge also ruled that the state had a legitimate interest in passing the law because gender-affirming care “carries with it undeniable risk and permanent outcomes.”
