COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) -- A Franklin County judge ruled on Tuesday that a contested Ohio law banning gender-affirming care for transgender youth can now go into effect after being on hold for several months.
Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Michael Holbrook said in the Tuesday decision that House Bill 68 does not violate several Ohio provisions and lifted the temporary restraining order that had been blocking the measure. The legislation will prohibit Ohio's children's hospitals from providing treatment like hormone therapy to trans minors, and was originally set to take effect on April 24.
"Children are just not old enough, they're not mature enough to be able to make these lifelong decisions," said Rep. Gary Click (R-Vickery), the legislation's primary sponsor. "So, we wanted to put on the brakes and say, 'wait a minute, this is an adult decision.' Let the kids be kids and save the adult thing for adults."
However, gender-affirming care is backed by every major medical association in the nation, like the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association. Christopher Bolling, a retired pediatrician and member of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told NBC4 trans youth feel targeted and will "adversely" feel H.B. 68's impact.
"The legislators who are behind this decided that they know better than medical providers and the major medical associations in this country," said Bolling. "I think it's a really chilling effect, it's sad for the families that they're going to be denied care."
Tuesday's ruling followed a five-day trial that took place in July after the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the measure in March on behalf of two families whose children are at risk of losing access to their healthcare. The organization said it is appealing Holbrook's "disappointing" ruling, "especially in light of the continuing efforts to undermine this vulnerable population in Ohio."
"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 Freda Levenson, legal director at the ACLU of Ohio. "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."
The ACLU argued the legislation violates the Ohio Constitution's single-subject rule, requiring bills to only be about one topic, given the measure addresses trans healthcare and also bans transgender athletes' participation in women's sports. The two provisions had been separate bills before Ohio House legislators combined them in June last year.
However, Holbrook said this argument is moot given the state's Supreme Court has previously recognized that "the mere fact that a bill embraces more than one topics is not fatal, as long as a common purpose or relationship exists between the topics." While Holbrook noted at first glance "there appears to be a disunity of subject matter in the act," he said "the substance of the act relates to parental rights with respect their transgender children."
"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," wrote Holbrook. "No matter how abhorrent that may be to some, it is a 'legitimate subject.'"
The ACLU also argued H.B. 68 goes against a constitutional amendment that says no law or rule "shall prohibit the purchase or sale of Health Care or health insurance." The amendment led by Ohio Republicans passed in 2011 and aimed to limit the effects of the Affordable Care Act.
Holbrook shot down this argument as well, writing that since "Ohio has legislated that a medical provider's provision of gender affirming care constitutes 'wrongdoing," then the remedy for those who object to Ohio's determination "cannot be found within the judicial system but is instead with their vote."
The legal challenge came after the Statehouse voted to override Gov. Mike DeWine’s veto of the legislation. DeWine decided to reject the bill after visiting several children’s hospitals, arguing "parents should make these decisions and not the government."
Attorney General Dave Yost applauded Holbrook's ruling on Tuesday, and had previously filed an emergency motion with the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing that the judge "overstepped his judicial authority" when he issued the initial restraining order against the bill.
"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," said a spokesperson for Yost's office. "The law doesn't say 'no' forever; it simply says 'not now’ while the child is still growing."
Bolling argued trans youth "have been made a political football" in Ohio, which he said is especially disheartening given they suffer from higher rates of depression, suicide and anxiety because they lack outlets for support and acceptance.
"They get ostracized at school, it's really hard on them," said Bolling. "To put limits around what treatments that are, you know, kind of accepted treatments that can be done through collaborative process where nobody's forced to do anything but where they have options for treatment, they can be lifesaving."
The ACLU reaffirmed their position that to override medical consensus is “government overreach," and promised it will "reinstate Ohio families’ right to make personal medical decisions with healthcare providers -- not politicians."
"H.B. 68's ban on medical treatments for gender dysphoria remains medically baseless and genuinely dangerous to the current and future well-being of transgender youth in the state," said Harper Seldin, senior staff attorney for the ACLU. "We are particularly appalled the court claims the 'regulation of transgender individuals' is a legitimate subject for the legislature under the state constitution."
Read Holbrook's full decision below.
