Top Ohio court to decide fate of transgender healthcare ban
The high court announced on July 22 that it's reviewing a lawsuit against House Bill 68, the state law prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost asked the justices to consider the case after an appeals court ruled in March that the law is unconstitutional, arguing it 'infringes on parents' fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children.'
Yost, a longtime H.B. 68 supporter, vowed to appeal that ruling. In an April statement, the attorney general's office said, '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.' Watch a previous NBC4 report on the March decision in the video player above.
Now able to endorse political candidates, Ohio churches express interest in staying neutral
Ohio's top court, which voted 6-1 along party lines to take up Yost's appeal, said in late April that the state can continue enforcing the law while litigation continues.
Boding well for H.B. 68, a Tennessee law that also prohibits trans minors from receiving treatment like puberty blockers and hormone therapy was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in June. Still, the ACLU of Ohio, which filed the lawsuit against H.B. 68 on behalf of two families with trans children, said it remains confident in challenging Ohio's version of the law.
'Make no mistake: the ACLU of Ohio's litigation challenging House Bill 68 will proceed,' said Freda Levenson, ACLU of Ohio chief legal officer, in a statement. 'Unlike [in Tennessee], our case raises separate constitutional claims under the Ohio Constitution. We will continue to do everything in our power to ensure transgender children and their families have the ability to live freely and thrive.'
H.B. 68, which also bans trans female athletes' participation in women's sports, faced a contentious road while advancing through Ohio's legislature. The measure was condemned by top Ohio doctors, including Nick Lashutka, president of the Ohio Children's Hospital Association, who argued at the Statehouse in 2023 that 'it is a dangerous precedent for government to dictate when medication is appropriate in pediatrics.'
While the Statehouse approved H.B. 68 in December 2023, Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed the legislation the following month. The governor said he made his decision after visiting patients at five children's hospitals, arguing that 'these are gut-wrenching decisions that should be made by parents and should be informed by teams of doctors.' Still, both chambers of the Statehouse moved to override DeWine's veto.
As 988 lifeline ends LGBTQ+ service, Ohio group warns of risks for youth
The ACLU filed its lawsuit against H.B. 68 later that spring, putting the law temporarily on hold and setting up a five-day Franklin County trial in July 2024. Ultimately, Common Pleas Judge Michael Holbrook ruled that the legislation could go into effect given it didn't violate Ohio's constitution. The ACLU then appealed Holbrook's decision to the appeals court.
'This has been a long hard fight to protect minors in the state of Ohio,' said Rep. Gary Click (R-Vickery), H.B. 68's primary sponsor, in a statement after Holbrook's ruling. 'A strong cross-section of Ohioans… recognize that decisions like these are too consequential to be made for and by minors who are incapable of providing informed consent.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Solve the daily Crossword
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Can GOP shock Dems in Aug. 5 special election to succeed Ruggerio in RI Senate?
The first test of how Rhode Island Republicans' message is playing in the state during the second Trump administration comes Aug. 5 in the special Senate election to replace the late Dominick Ruggerio. The GOP's Alex Asermely takes on Democratic nominee Stefano Famiglietti in the race to represent Senate District 4, covering most of North Providence and a section of northwest Providence. Republicans face an uphill battle in the Senate district, which Democrat Ruggerio represented since 1984 and which has been controlled by his extended family for more than half a century. And Ruggerio hadn't had a general election opponent since two independent candidates were on the ballot in 2012. Famiglietti, with support from the state's Democratic establishment and businesses, outspent Asermely in the campaign by more than three to one, about $32,000 to $9,000. Asermely may benefit from the fact that the district has become somewhat more conservative in recent years, in part due to boundary changes that made it more difficult terrain for Democratic primary challengers. And North Providence is among the suburbs that have tilted red since 2016. Both Asermely, 39, and Famiglietti, 33, are attorneys and residents of North Providence. Famiglietti defeated three other Democrats in the July primary. Asermely was unopposed for the GOP nomination. Where do they stand on the issues? Asemely is running on business friendliness and cutting taxes. Famiglietti's top priority is bringing back more state aid to North Providence. Gun control, a big issue in the recent General Assembly session, has not been a top issue in this race, with both candidates saying they opposed the recently passed ban on sales of assault-style weapons. And, unlike Famiglietti's primary opponents, neither candidate is calling for Mayor Charles Lombardi to step down over allegations that town employees did work on his property. "At this junction, Mayor Lombardi is facing just civil accusations and not any criminal charges," Famiglietti said. "While the accusations are severe and bears watching, we certainly cannot solely allow such accusations to determine guilt or innocence." Asermely said it's a town rather than a State House matter. Truck tolls They do, however, differ on some other big issues. The state budget assumes the truck toll network will relaunch sometime next year and provide $10 million in state revenue, although details remain scant. Is Gov. Dan McKee right to turn the tolls back on? "No, absolutely not, as it is an impediment to commerce," Asermely said. "It is an unfair burden on small businesses that gets passed on to the consumers." Famiglietti: "Yes, I am in favor of turning the truck tolls back on, as it is the most effective way to raise revenue to repair our roads and bridges without directly impacting the taxpayers. With that said, I will never be in favor of tolling passenger vehicles." Hospitals Despite extensive efforts by the state to help shore up financially struggling hospitals, the CharterCare hospitals that included Fatima of North Providence are still searching for investors to help facilitate a turnaround plan. Should the state do whatever it takes to keep them afloat? "The state should use any and all resources to save these facilities," Famiglietti said. "Both facilities are essential to our local health care system as well as our state's health care system. The loss of these facilities would cause an unbearable strain that would adversely affect care in our state." Asermely: "These are private businesses. It is not the duty of the taxpayers to bail them out. The taxpayers contribute enough through private pay, insurance, Medicare, & Medicaid. Under no circumstances should services be cut, as this is a management issue." Washington Bridge The Democratic and Republican candidates also have differing report cards for the Rhode Island Department of Transportation's handling of the westbound Washington Bridge emergency. Famiglietti said while the bridge closure has adversely affected residents, "the steps taken to allow for continued flow of traffic while safeguarding public safety have been prudent. However, we must take care that all of our roads and bridges are monitored and repaired to avoid situations like this in the future." Asermely blasted the pace of the rebuild effort and DOT's answers for how the problem arose.. "No, it has not progressed fast enough and work seems to be sporadic and slow," he said. "Transparency has been a disaster and this should have never happened in the first place." Housing Neither candidate is a fan of state efforts to build more housing by overriding local restrictions on construction or ending mandates for homes to sit on large properties. "There is little available property in Senate District 4," Asermely said. "The use of that property should be defined by the market, not the legislature." Famiglietti: "I do not support allowing more unfettered housing in District 4. My experience on the North Providence Town Council has shown me the negative effects increasing housing density has on our already densely populated community." Pensions Both candidates support restoring cost of living adjustment payments to public-sector retirees that were cut in 2011, but neither supports raising taxes to do it. School lunches Neither candidate supports providing universal free school lunch, as in Massachusetts and Connecticut. This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: Senate District 4 special election: Where candidates stand on issues Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Top Ohio court to decide fate of transgender healthcare ban
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — The Ohio Supreme Court is set to decide whether a contested state law banning certain medical treatment for transgender youth is unconstitutional. The high court announced on July 22 that it's reviewing a lawsuit against House Bill 68, the state law prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost asked the justices to consider the case after an appeals court ruled in March that the law is unconstitutional, arguing it 'infringes on parents' fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children.' Yost, a longtime H.B. 68 supporter, vowed to appeal that ruling. In an April statement, the attorney general's office said, '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.' Watch a previous NBC4 report on the March decision in the video player above. Now able to endorse political candidates, Ohio churches express interest in staying neutral Ohio's top court, which voted 6-1 along party lines to take up Yost's appeal, said in late April that the state can continue enforcing the law while litigation continues. Boding well for H.B. 68, a Tennessee law that also prohibits trans minors from receiving treatment like puberty blockers and hormone therapy was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in June. Still, the ACLU of Ohio, which filed the lawsuit against H.B. 68 on behalf of two families with trans children, said it remains confident in challenging Ohio's version of the law. 'Make no mistake: the ACLU of Ohio's litigation challenging House Bill 68 will proceed,' said Freda Levenson, ACLU of Ohio chief legal officer, in a statement. 'Unlike [in Tennessee], our case raises separate constitutional claims under the Ohio Constitution. We will continue to do everything in our power to ensure transgender children and their families have the ability to live freely and thrive.' H.B. 68, which also bans trans female athletes' participation in women's sports, faced a contentious road while advancing through Ohio's legislature. The measure was condemned by top Ohio doctors, including Nick Lashutka, president of the Ohio Children's Hospital Association, who argued at the Statehouse in 2023 that 'it is a dangerous precedent for government to dictate when medication is appropriate in pediatrics.' While the Statehouse approved H.B. 68 in December 2023, Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed the legislation the following month. The governor said he made his decision after visiting patients at five children's hospitals, arguing that 'these are gut-wrenching decisions that should be made by parents and should be informed by teams of doctors.' Still, both chambers of the Statehouse moved to override DeWine's veto. As 988 lifeline ends LGBTQ+ service, Ohio group warns of risks for youth The ACLU filed its lawsuit against H.B. 68 later that spring, putting the law temporarily on hold and setting up a five-day Franklin County trial in July 2024. Ultimately, Common Pleas Judge Michael Holbrook ruled that the legislation could go into effect given it didn't violate Ohio's constitution. The ACLU then appealed Holbrook's decision to the appeals court. 'This has been a long hard fight to protect minors in the state of Ohio,' said Rep. Gary Click (R-Vickery), H.B. 68's primary sponsor, in a statement after Holbrook's ruling. 'A strong cross-section of Ohioans… recognize that decisions like these are too consequential to be made for and by minors who are incapable of providing informed consent.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Ohio Supreme Court removes Whitehall council candidate from the race
WHITEHALL, Ohio (WCMH) — The Ohio Supreme Court removed a candidate from Whitehall's City Council race last week, reversing a decision by the Franklin County Board of Elections. The city challenged council hopeful Holly Stein's candidacy because of a stipulation in the city's charter about residency. Whitehall said Stein had not lived in Ward 4 the appropriate amount of time to be a candidate. Although the Franklin County Board of Elections said her candidacy was still valid, the Ohio Supreme Court disagreed and removed her from the race last week. Whitehall's charter says candidates must 'have resided in their respective wards … for at least two years preceding their election.' Stein lived in Ward 4 from 2019 to 2022 but moved away before returning in 2024. Upon noting this, Whitehall Councilwoman Lori Elmore, acting as a private citizen, brought the case before the Franklin County Board of Elections early this year. Stein argued that because she had lived in the ward for at least two years in total before the election, she should still be allowed to run. In her defense, she cited another Ohio Supreme Court case where a candidate faced similar residency concerns but was allowed to remain in the race. Top Ohio court to decide fate of trans healthcare ban In March, the Franklin County Board of Elections agreed with her 3-1 and decided to keep her on the ballot. Shortly after, Elmore appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, this time alongside the city. See previous coverage in the video player above. On July 23, the Ohio Supreme Court said there are differences between her case and the previous one, especially as justices in the previous case barely agreed with one another. Citing opinions from that case, the court ruled Stein needed to have lived in the ward for the two years before running for council, so she is not qualified for the 2025 election. All seven Ohio Supreme Court Justices ruled in favor of Elmore and the city. 'While this outcome is not the decision I wanted, I respect the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court and will use this time to support other candidates and prepare myself to be the best candidate I can be for future elections,' Stein said. 'I am here to serve the people of Whitehall.' Stein told NBC4 she plans to run again in the future. In the meantime, she has plans to support other independent candidates in city council races this year, and will help speak up at council meetings on behalf of other residents as a member of the public. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
