An Ohio judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked the state’s ban on gender-affirming health care from going into effect, handing a preliminary victory to transgender minors seeking care in the state.
Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge Michael Holbrook, a Republican, granted a request for a temporary restraining order against House Bill 68, which prohibits minors’ access to treatments including puberty blockers, therapy hormonal and surgery. A “grandfather clause” allows transgender children and teens who receive care before the law’s effective date to continue treatment.
Ohio’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine, vetoed the bill in December, telling reporters at a news conference that the consequences of such a law for transgender children and their families “could not be more profound.” GOP lawmakers voted to override DeWine’s veto the following month.
The law, which also bars transgender women and girls from competing on girls’ school sports teams, was scheduled to take effect on April 24. Tuesday’s restraining order will expire 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 defend this duly enacted statute, which protects our children from irrevocable adult decisions.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Ohio and the law firm Goodwin sued Ohio in March on behalf of two transgender minors and their families. They argued that House Bill 68 violates the Ohio Constitution’s equal protection clause and a rule that prevents laws from covering more than one subject.
Ohio lawmakers in June combined House Bill 68, also known as the Save Teens from Experimentation (SAFE) Act, with a separate measure to bar transgender student-athletes from competing on sports teams consistent with their gender identity.
“It is not lost on this Court that the General Assembly was unable to pass the SAFE portion of the Act separately, and it was only after passing the Saving Women’s Sports provisions that it was able to pass,” Holbrook wrote in his opinion.
Holbrook added that plaintiffs would likely be able to argue that the law violates their constitutional rights.
“There is little doubt as to the irreparable nature of the actual physical harm to plaintiffs following the application of the Act,” he wrote.
In a statement, ACLU attorney Harper Seldin said Holbrook’s ruling is a “victory for transgender Ohioans and their families” but added that the group is prepared to fight the law until it is permanently overturned. .
Ohio Attorney General David Yost (R), named as a defendant in the lawsuit challenging House Bill 68, did not immediately return a request for comment. After the ACLU filed its lawsuit last month, he said his office is prepared to defend the law.
Including Ohio, 24 states as of 2021 have passed laws that strongly restrict or prohibit gender-affirming health care for transgender youth, despite statements from leading medical organizations that such treatments are safe and medically necessary.
Legal challenges to state laws prohibiting gender-affirming care have produced mixed results, and federal appeals courts have been divided over whether the bans are constitutional.
The Supreme Court on Monday allowed Idaho’s ban to go into effect after it was blocked by a district court in December. The court did not assess whether the law is constitutional.
This article was updated at 7:02 pm
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
