An Ohio law that bans “gender-affirming care” for minors in the state remains in place, at least for now, after the state’s top court paused the ruling of an appeals court pending an ongoing legal challenge.
The court granted a request from Attorney General Dave Yost to pause a ruling from a panel of 10th District Court of Appeals judges in Franklin County that partially overturned the Saving Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act. The lower court’s order is paused pending “a jurisdictional appeal.”
The state law bars “gender-affirming medical care” for LGBTQ+ youth in Ohio, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy.
“But it is straightforward: the Ohio Constitution does not, under the Health Care Freedom Amendment or the Due Course of Law Clause, create a constitutional right to use chemicals on children to transition their sex or gender,” Yost said in his request to the Ohio Supreme Court. “Neither Ohio’s voters in 2011 nor the framers in 1802, nor any deeply rooted tradition of Ohio’s People, creates a right to physically or chemically castrate children, whether by a surgeon’s knife or a self-administered syringe.”
In January 2024, Ohio lawmakers overrode a veto from Republican Gov. Mike DeWine to codify the SAFE ACT with the passage of House Bill 68. The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Ohio, and the Goodwin law firm filed a legal challenge in March 2024 on behalf of two families.
On Aug. 6, 2024, following a five-day trial, a judge ruled the law does not violate any of the constitutional provisions the appellants cited, allowing the ban to take effect. They appealed, leading to the 10th District Court of Appeals ruling that partially struck down the state law.
In March, the appeals court found that a ban on gender-affirming pharmaceutical care “interferes with parent-appellants’ fundamental right to care for their children.” The lower court said “the state failed to meet its burden of showing that H.B. 68’s categorical prescription ban is narrowly tailored to advance the state’s compelling interest in protecting children so as to survive strict scrutiny.”
The state asked the appellate court to stay the injunction, pending a full appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. However, the appellate court denied the state’s motion, prompting Yost to file a request with the state’s highest court.
“It is a terrible shame that the Supreme Court of Ohio is permitting the state to evade compliance with the Ohio Constitution,” ACLU of Ohio Legal Director Freda Levenson said in a statement. “Our clients have suffered tangible and irreparable harm during the eight months that HB 68 has been in place, including being denied essential health care in their home state.
“The Court of Appeals was correct that HB 68 violates at least two separate provisions of the Ohio Constitution,” Levenson added. “We will continue to fight this extreme ban as the case goes ahead before the Supreme Court of Ohio.”
House Bill 68 also bars biological males from playing on female sports teams. However, that aspect of the law was not part of the legal challenge.
“This fight is far from over – and until it is, there’s no sense in toggling the law on and off like a light switch,” Yost said in an early April statement when the state filed the motion for a stay. “With the case now in the hands of the Ohio Supreme Court, we believe the law remains in effect as the case moves forward. We hope that the Ohio Supreme Court will confirm that, so there’s no doubt that our children remain protected.
“We look forward to showing once again that the legislature acted properly in enacting this constitutional law, which protects our children from irreversible medical decisions,” Yost added. “I remain confident that the law will be upheld.”
