Ohio judge blocks ban on gender-affirming care for minors

An Ohio judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked the state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care from taking effect, handing a preliminary victory to transgender minors seeking treatment in the state.

Franklin County Civil Court Judge Michael Holbrook (R) granted a request for a temporary restraining order against House Bill 68, which prohibits minors from receiving treatments such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery. A “grandfather clause” would allow transgender children and teens who received treatment before the law’s effective date to continue treatment.

Ohio’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine, vetoed the bill in December, saying at a press conference that the impact of such a law on transgender children and their families “couldn’t be more severe.” he said. Republican lawmakers voted the next month to override DeWine’s veto.

The law, which would also ban transgender women and girls from competing on girls’ school sports teams, was scheduled to take effect on April 24. Tuesday’s restraining order expires in two weeks, with an option to renew.

Attorney General Dave Yost (R) responded to Tuesday’s ruling by saying he was “confident” the law would be upheld.

“This is just the first page of the book,” Yost said. “We will fight vigorously to protect this well-enacted law, which protects children from irreversible adult decisions.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Ohio, and the law firm Goodwin sued the state of Ohio on behalf of two transgender minors and their families in March. They argued that House Bill 68 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Ohio Constitution and the rule prohibiting laws from covering more than one subject.

In June, the Ohio General Assembly passed House Bill 68, also known as the Saving Youth from Experimentation (SAFE) Act, and another measure banning transgender student-athletes from competing on sports teams that correspond to their gender identity. Combined.

“It is not lost on this court that the General Assembly could not pass the SAFE portion of the act separately, but only by logrolling the Saving Women’s Sports provisions.” Holbrook he wrote in his opinion.

Holbrook added that plaintiffs will likely succeed in arguing that the law violates their constitutional rights.

“There is little doubt that the actual physical injury suffered by Plaintiff during the enforcement of the Act is irreparable,” he wrote.

Harper Seldin, staff attorney for the ACLU, said in a statement that Holbrook’s decision is a “victory for transgender Ohioans and their families,” but the organization is committed to continuing to support the law until it is permanently overturned. He added that he was ready to fight.

Ohio Attorney General David Yost (R), who is named as a defendant in the lawsuit challenging House Bill 68, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. After the ACLU filed its lawsuit last month, Yost said his office was prepared to uphold the law.

Starting in 2021, 24 states, including Ohio, have passed laws that will significantly limit or ban gender-affirming medical treatment for transgender youth, even though major medical authorities say such treatment is safe and medically necessary. Despite the statement.

Legal challenges to state laws banning gender-affirming care have had mixed results, with federal appeals courts divided on whether the bans are constitutional.

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Idaho ban, which was blocked by a district court in December, to go into effect. The court did not consider whether the law was constitutional.

This article was updated at 7:02 p.m.