Ohio Ban On Gender-Affirming Care For Minors Upheld By Judge

Ohio Ban On Gender-Affirming Care

An Ohio judge on Tuesday upheld a Republican-backed state law banning gender-affirming care, such as puberty blockers and hormones, for transgender minors, rejecting a challenge by families of transgender adolescents. Judge Michael Holbrook of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas delivered the ruling after a non-jury trial last month. Previously, Holbrook had blocked the law from taking effect while hearing the case.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost praised the decision, with spokesperson Bethany McCorkle stating, “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 American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its Ohio chapter, representing the plaintiffs, announced plans to appeal. ACLU of Ohio Legal Director Freda Levenson stated, “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.”

Ohio’s Republican-controlled legislature passed the law in January, making Ohio one of at least 22 states to restrict gender-affirming care for minors. The legislature overrode the veto of Governor Mike DeWine, a Republican who decided after hearing from parents of transgender youth that gender-affirming care had been lifesaving for their children.

The families challenging the law argued that it violated a 2011 amendment to the state constitution, which stated that no state law could prohibit Ohioans from purchasing healthcare. Holbrook ruled that the amendment did not prevent the state from banning wrongdoing by healthcare providers and that the state had determined that gender-affirming care constituted wrongdoing. He wrote, “The remedy for those who object … cannot be found within the judicial system but is instead with their vote.”

Holbrook also concluded that the state had a legitimate interest in passing the law because gender-affirming care “carries with it undeniable risk and permanent outcomes.”