The Ohio law also biological males from competing in women’s sports at all academic levels.
An Ohio county judge ruled on Aug. 6 that a law prohibiting “gender transition” and banning biological males from competing in women’s sports does not violate the state’s constitution.
The court’s decision, which lifts an earlier injunction by the same judge, clears the way for the law to be enforced.
In a 13-page decision, Judge Michael J. Holbrook of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas upheld House Bill 68, which created rules around what is often called “gender-affirming care.”
The two acts contained in the law are the “Saving Ohio Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act” and the “Save Women’s Sports Act.” The first act bans transgender surgeries and hormone therapies for minors. The second act blocks transgender athletes who identify as females from participating in women’s sports at all academic levels.
The judge found that the state government has a legitimate interest in protecting the health and safety of minors, noting that other countries have changed their positions on “gender-affirming care” for children due to inconsistent results and potential risks.
“The Court finds that upon weighing the evidence received at trial, the Health Care Ban is rationally related to this interest. It is limited to minors. Moreover, the medical care banned carries with it undeniable risk and permanent outcomes,” he wrote.
“Indeed, countries once confident in the administration of gender affirming care to minors are now reversing their position as a result of the significant inconsistencies in results and potential side effects of the care. Thus, there can be no doubt that the Health Care Ban is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.”
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost applauded the court’s decision.
“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,” a spokesperson for Yost said in a statement. “The law doesn’t say ‘no’ forever; it simply says ‘not now’ while the child is still growing.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, which challenged the law in April, called the ruling a setback and said it plans to appeal.
ACLU of Ohio’s legal director, Freda Levenson, said the ruling was “devastating” for the group’s clients. Despite the setback, Levenson said the group will immediately appeal.
The ACLU argued the law violated the Ohio constitution, denies transgender minors health care, and is discriminatory.
The group also argued that it violates Ohio’s single-subject rule for bills, which mandates that no bill shall contain more than one subject.
Judge Holbrook rejected the ACLU’s arguments, finding that the law satisfies the single-subject rule. He said that the Supreme Court of Ohio recognizes that “the mere fact that a bill embraces more than one topic is not fatal” as long as a common purpose or relationship exists between the topics.
In this case, the court found that the law contains a common purpose, as far as it related to the single-subject rule, “namely, the General Assembly’s regulation of transgender individuals.”
The ACLU also argued that the law violates the Health Care Freedom Amendment by imposing penalties on medical providers offering gender transition procedures to minors. Judge Holbrook ruled that wrongdoing by health care providers may be punished under the law and that this includes gender transition procedures for minors.
The judge wrote that recourse for those “dissatisfied with the General Assembly’s determinations must be exercised through their vote as opposed to the judicial system.”
State lawmakers in January enacted the law after overriding a veto by Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine.