Appeals court blocks Ohio's ban on gender-affirming care for minors
Ohio's ban on gender-affirming care for minors is unconstitutional and must be permanently blocked from being enforced, a three-judge panel of appellate judges ruled Tuesday. The law also banned trans women and girls from participating in female sports.
The state attorney general vowed an immediate appeal.
On Tuesday, the state 10th District Court of Appeals reversed a lower court judge's decision last summer to allow the law to go into effect, after finding it 'reasonably limits parents' rights.' The law bans counseling, gender-affirming surgery and hormone therapy for minors, unless they are already receiving such therapies and a doctor deems it risky to stop.
The litigation was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Ohio and the global law firm Goodwin, who argued the law not only denies health care to transgender children and teens, but specifically discriminates against them accessing it.
The appellate court agreed, in a 2-1 majority opinion written by Judge Carly Edelstein, and cited a number of flaws in the lower court's reasoning.
The judge cited a number of flaws in the lower court's reasoning. She said that the Ohio law does not outlaw identical drugs when they're used for other reasons, only when they're used for gender transitioning, which makes it discriminatory. She also said that a prescription ban is not a reasonable exercise of the state's police power when it is weighed against the rights of parents to care for their children.
Addressing proponents' arguments that minors are not in a position to understand the long-term impacts such procedures could have on their lives, the judge said that, while they may not be, their parents are.
'Thus, in considering whether the H.B. 68 ban is reasonable, it is necessary to keep in mind that the law recognizes the maturity, experience, and capacity of parents to make difficult judgments and act in their children's best interest,' she wrote.
The ACLU called the ruling 'historic.'
"This win restores the right of trans youth in Ohio to choose vitally important health care, with the support of their families and physicians," Freda Levenson, legal director of the ACLU of Ohio, said in a statement. 'We are gratified by the Court's decision, which soundly rejects this interference of politicians with Ohioans' bodily autonomy.'
Tuesday's ruling marked the second blow for the legislation.
Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed the law in December 2023, after touring the state to visit children's hospitals and talking to families of children with gender dysphoria. He cast his action as thoughtful, limited and 'pro-life' — citing the suicide risks associated with minors who don't get proper treatment for gender dysphoria.
DeWine simultaneously announced plans to move to administratively ban gender-affirming surgeries until a person is 18, and to position the state to better regulate and track gender-affirming treatments in both children and adults. He hoped the move would allay concerns of fellow Republicans at the Ohio Statehouse, but the administration swiftly backed off that plan after transgender adults raised serious concerns about how state regulations could impact their lives and health.
Ohio lawmakers stood their ground on the bill, easily overriding his veto — making Ohio the 23rd state to ban gender-affirming health care for trans youth.
Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a candidate to succeed DeWine next year who serves as the Legislature 's lawyer, quickly released a statement saying that he will appeal Tuesday's ruling.
'This is a no-brainer – we are appealing that decision and will seek an immediate stay," he said. 'There is no way I'll stop fighting to protect these unprotected children.'
Levenson acknowledged that Tuesday's ruling was likely not the end of the legal dispute, but she said in a statement that her organization remained 'fervently committed' to preventing the bill from ever taking effect again.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
4 hours ago
- NBC News
Oklahoma inmate Richard Glossip to face new murder trial but without death penalty
Oklahoma's top prosecutor said Monday the state intends to pursue a new murder trial against inmate Richard Glossip but without the death penalty after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated his capital conviction in a rare victory for a death row prisoner. State Attorney General Gentner Drummond's decision to retry Glossip, 62, on a first-degree murder charge came out of a status conference hearing. In a news release, Drummond said, the evidence still implicates him in the 1997 murder of Oklahoma City motel owner Barry Van Treese. Glossip, a motel manager working for Van Treese, has maintained his innocence while he was on death row for almost three decades. While Drummond, a Republican, has not agreed with Glossip's innocence claims, he was supportive of the Supreme Court's ruling in February, when the majority of justices, he said, agreed "it is now an undeniable fact that he did not receive a fair trial." He said in a statement Monday that he would ensure Glossip receives an impartial one now. "While it was clear to me and to the U.S. Supreme Court that Mr. Glossip did not receive a fair trial, I have never proclaimed his innocence," Drummond said. "After the high court remanded the matter back to district court, my office thoroughly reviewed the merits of the case against Richard Glossip and concluded that sufficient evidence exists to secure a murder conviction." Oklahoma County District Attorney Vicki Behenna, a Democrat, had previously indicated that Glossip would not be eligible for the death penalty now if he were to be retried. Drummond said he would seek a life sentence for Glossip at his next trial. "While I cannot go back 25 years and handle the case in the proper way that would have ensured true justice, I still have a duty to seek the justice that is available today," he added. The continuation of the state's prosecution against Glossip resumes a twisting case that saw him dodge death several times with nine separate execution dates that had to be postponed. Various courts had delayed the executions as he appealed, while state corrections officials also came under scrutiny a decade ago for botched execution attempts. But Glossip's case had been championed in recent years by a bipartisan group of Oklahoma legislators after an indepe n dent report they commissioned in 2022 found that "no reasonable jury hearing the complete record would convict Glossip of first-degree murder." The report centered on the state's primary witness, Justin Sneed, who had confirmed to the report's investigators that he had discussions with multiple family members about "recanting" his testimony over an 11-year period. Investigators also said the district attorney's case file included documentation describing how the state provided Sneed information "so he could conform his testimony to match the evidence" from other witnesses. Glossip's original 1998 conviction was overturned in 2001, when a state appeals court found that the evidence against him was weak. But the state took him to trial again, and a second jury found him guilty in 2004. At Glossip's trial, Sneed, a motel handyman, admitted that he killed Van Treese, but said that it was at Glossip's direction and that he had been promised $10,000. In exchange for testifying against Glossip, Sneed received a life sentence while Glossip was given the death penalty. Prosecutors said Glossip orchestrated the plot because he was embezzling from the motel and feared being fired. The Supreme Court tossed out Glossip's capital conviction in a 5-3 ruling. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate, presumably because he was involved in the case when he was on a federal appeals court that includes Oklahoma. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority's ruling that prosecutors "knew Sneed's statements were false" and that "because Sneed's testimony was the only direct evidence of Glossip's guilt of capital murder, the jury's assessment of Sneed's credibility was necessarily determinative here." "Hence, there is a reasonable likelihood that correcting Sneed's testimony would have affected the judgment of the jury," she added. After the Supreme Court's decision, Glossip was moved off death row, but was held without bail in the Oklahoma County Detention Center on a first-degree murder charge. A next court date in Glossip's case is scheduled for June 17. Glossip's attorney, Don Knight, did not immediately comment about the prosecutors' decision, but had welcomed the Supreme Court's ruling in February that spared his longtime client from the death chamber. "He had nine execution dates, three last meals, and obviously, to finally get relief has been huge for him," Knight said, "and he's thrilled beyond words."
NBC News
11 hours ago
- NBC News
As ivermectin goes over the counter, some pharmacists worry about a lack of guidance
Boise, Idaho, pharmacist Matt Murray has no choice but to disappoint the handful of people who call him every day asking for a drug used to treat parasitic worms. He could give them the medication, called ivermectin, but only with a doctor's note. The callers aren't in the throes of an active intestinal worm infestation, Murray said. They simply want access to the pills without having to see a doctor first. 'A lot of people are calling, asking, 'Do you guys have it for sale? Can I buy it? How do I get it?'' said Murray, the director of operations for the independent Customedica Pharmacy. 'Not so much, 'How does it work? What is it for?'' The volume of such calls has increased sharply since mid-April, when Idaho Gov. Brad Little, a Republican, signed a bill into law mandating that ivermectin be available to anyone who wants it over the counter. While the law technically says that pharmacists like Murray can sell the drug over the counter, the Food and Drug Administration hasn't approved it to be used this way. 'I don't feel that we could just sell prescription ivermectin,' Murray said. 'It's not designed or packaged for retail sale.' That hasn't stopped frenzied social media claims about ivermectin's supposed 'miraculous' abilities to cure everything from Covid to cancer. 'Ivermectin eliminated the cancer on the skin of my shoulder and it only took 3 weeks,' one person wrote on X. 'It's also working wonders on my eczema,' another wrote on the platform. Ivermectin has never been formulated or labeled specifically for over-the-counter use, like aspirin or an antacid. Without proper guidance, there is concern that people could overdose on the medication. Interest in using drugs or experimental treatments in unapproved ways has gained steam with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s appointment as head of the Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy recently said on a podcast that people should have access to controversial alternative therapies like stem cells and chelation therapy to remove heavy metals from the body. The FDA has warned that neither should be used without oversight from a doctor. The hype has prompted lawmakers in 16 states, including Idaho, to propose and in some cases pass legislation to make the pills readily available for anyone without a prescription. While health insurance covers many prescription drugs, including ivermectin, it doesn't cover over-the-counter medicines. This year, two other GOP-led states — Arkansas and Tennessee — passed over-the-counter ivermectin laws. NBC News called 15 independent pharmacies in those states, plus Idaho, to ask whether pharmacists could provide ivermectin without a prescription. Not a single one said they'd sell the drug over the counter, despite the new laws. All, however, appeared to be sympathetic to the request. One pharmacist in Arkansas took the time to explain that he needed to wait until the FDA provided guidance on over-the-counter ivermectin. Until then, he and all the others said, over-the-counter access to ivermectin would have to wait. Pharmacists say that just because over-the-counter ivermectin is written into law doesn't mean it should be made available to anyone who asks for it. They still rely on federal health guidance. 'Most over-the-counter drugs, especially ones that were prescriptions at one point, go through some FDA approval process,' Murray said. 'In that process, it gets decided what the labeling is going to say,' including warnings and directions. Republican lawmakers in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and West Virginia have also proposed bills to make ivermectin available over the counter. Nearly all would simply permit health care providers and pharmacists to distribute ivermectin without a prescription. Most, like the one proposed in Alabama, would also protect pharmacists from any possible disciplinary action such as fines or license suspension from pharmacy licensing boards for dispensing it. Maine's proposed legislation specifically permits ivermectin to be sold to people who want to try it for Covid, cancer or the flu. Mississippi's bill would limit over-the-counter ivermectin to anyone 18 and older. The drug likely wouldn't be placed on store shelves, but be kept behind pharmacy counters, much like some cold medicines. Even if states do pass laws protecting pharmacists from disciplinary action, like the proposed legislation in Alabama, Murray said that he and his colleagues remain concerned. 'If you dispense something that doesn't have directions or safety precautions on it, who's ultimately liable if that causes harm?' Murray said. 'I don't know that I would want to assume that risk.' The Food and Drug Administration warns that taking large doses of ivermectin 'can be dangerous' and cause vomiting, diarrhea, low blood pressure, seizures, coma and even death. The drug could also interact with other medications like blood thinners, the FDA says. A spokeswoman for CVS Health said that while its pharmacies are able to dispense ivermectin with a prescription, they are 'not currently selling ivermectin over the counter' in any state. Walgreens declined to comment. What ivermectin is — and isn't Ivermectin was discovered by Japanese biochemist Satoshi Ōmura in the 1970s, first as a veterinary drug and then as a groundbreaking treatment for dangerous and disfiguring tropical diseases such as river blindness, as well as tapeworms, scabies and other worm-related infections. Hundreds of millions of people in mostly underdeveloped countries have used it safely with minimal side effects, such as fatigue or diarrhea, for decades. During the pandemic, the true benefit of the drug got twisted and distorted amid a social media frenzy. When mainstream doctors and scientists insisted that ivermectin didn't treat Covid, mostly conservative groups embraced it in direct opposition to public health officials. Podcaster Joe Rogan told his tens of millions of followers that ivermectin worked to cure him of Covid in 2021, prompting many people to seek out the drug as a way to treat mild or moderate cases of the virus. While there was early hope that ivermectin could ease Covid symptoms, it didn't treat respiratory viruses. It still doesn't. Ivermectin has also been touted as a cancer cure. On the same podcast, actor Mel Gibson claimed ivermectin had wiped out Stage 4 cancer in three of his friends. Gibson offered no proof. Some cancer patients believed the promises, with potentially devastating results. 'I tried that last year,' Scott Adams, the creator of the 'Dilbert' comic strip, wrote on X, 'to no effect.' Adams, a vocal Donald Trump supporter, revealed in May that he'd been diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. 'There are claims of it working, but I am aware of no patient who benefitted from it.' Adams asked his social media followers to stop inundating him with advice to take ivermectin. Adams wrote that his 'odds of survival have probably jumped from zero to 30%' because he decided on a different treatment and will be 'working with top doctors in the field.' When one person pleaded with him in the comments not to discourage people from trying ivermectin, the cartoonist didn't play around: 'Your advice could kill people if they delay other treatments.' There's simply no evidence that ivermectin treats cancer, said Dr. Harold Burstein, a breast oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. He knows because he's looked for it, without success. Since the Rogan podcast featuring Gibson aired, Burstein has had an uptick in patients asking him about ivermectin. He scoured the medical literature looking for any shred of indication that the drug could be useful to his patients. 'There are exactly zero published clinical trials in a human being on whether ivermectin does or doesn't treat cancer,' Burstein said. 'I can assure you that if any oncologist in America had seen' a benefit to ivermectin, he said, 'they would have been eager to write it up.' Some scientists are indeed trying to figure out whether ivermectin has any impact on cancer outcomes. Researchers at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles have begun a preliminary study combining ivermectin with an immunotherapy drug for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Final results aren't expected anytime soon. Doctors tried to make ivermectin 'work' Ivermectin is manufactured in the U.S. by Merck. The company said in a statement that ivermectin should only be used within the approved FDA framework. 'The use of ivermectin is not supported beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information,' a Merck spokesperson wrote in an email. Despite the growing push for over-the-counter ivermectin, there's no sales data available for how many people are buying the pills. Focusing on making ivermectin available without a doctor's prescription is the latest in a trend of mostly conservative politicians sidestepping expert medical advice. Utah and Florida, for example, recently banned community water fluoridation, despite decades of widespread evidence that it drastically reduces tooth decay. Dr. Hugh Cassiere, director of critical care services for South Shore University Hospital, part of Northwell Health in New York, said, 'This is about constituents who either heard, read or saw something on social media and now have an idea that this is something good. They're going right to their congressman or senator to demand access.' 'That's not how medicine should work,' he said. Scientists did, in fact, study whether ivermectin helped people with Covid. Dr. Adrian Hernandez, a cardiologist with the Duke Clinical Research Institute in Durham, North Carolina, led a large research project that ultimately showed ivermectin had no benefit in treating acute Covid. 'It's always great that legislators care about the health of the state,' Hernandez said. 'But ivermectin didn't help patients get better any faster.' Hernandez's study was posted on a preprint server called medRxiv in 2022. Studies posted on the site are considered preliminary because they haven't been peer-reviewed. A second 2022 paper published by the New England Journal of Medicine found that Covid patients treated with ivermectin weren't any less likely to be hospitalized than people who didn't get the drug. A third study that did suggest a benefit was later retracted because it contained fraudulent data, according to the publisher. None of this stopped many from demanding access to the drug. During the pandemic, hospitals reported a spike in patients who had been poisoned after taking veterinary-grade ivermectin intended for livestock. Two deaths in New Mexico were linked to the drug. Even the FDA warned that high doses of ivermectin can cause seizures, coma and death. 'You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it,' the FDA tweeted on Aug. 21, 2021. The controversial post was later deleted but can still be accessed through web archives. A Merck spokesperson said the drug shouldn't be used for anything other than clearing parasitic infestations. Northwell Health's Cassiere said medications, especially ivermectin, should only be used after talking with a qualified health care provider, no matter how politicians vote. 'If you're not an expert, if you did not go to medical school, nurse practitioner school, physician assistant school, and don't have the proper training, then you should not be recommending therapies outside of that expertise,' he said. 'Are you going to get a bank loan at the deli on the corner? I don't think so.'
NBC News
12 hours ago
- NBC News
In New Jersey, Democrats search for a candidate to fight Trump
PLAINFIELD, N.J. — As voter Wendy David began to explain why she is supporting Newark Mayor Ras Baraka for governor in New Jersey, she stopped midsentence. 'I'll just be frank,' the Plainfield Democrat told NBC News. 'I feel Ras can stand up against Trump and protect us.' David isn't alone. In conversations with nearly 40 New Jersey Democratic voters in recent days, a common theme emerged: Many New Jersey Democrats are looking to support a candidate for governor in Tuesday's primary who will forcefully push back against President Donald Trump. And the six Democratic hopefuls have been making their cases against Trump on the airwaves and on the campaign trail. 'This fight in New Jersey is a national fight,' Baraka told supporters, including David, gathered in a backyard here on a recent Saturday evening. 'As I keep telling everybody, we have a first opportunity to clap back against what Donald Trump is doing,' Baraka later added. That emphasis on Trump underscores how the president is looming over the New Jersey race, one of two governor's races this year, and shaping the primaries for both parties. On the Republican side, Trump helped cement former state legislator Jack Ciattarelli's front-runner status when he endorsed him last month. Ciattarelli still has to win a contested primary Tuesday, and he has been sure to remind Republicans that he has the president's support, recently launching a TV ad touting the endorsement. The Democratic primary is more uncertain, with six well-funded candidates representing different paths for their party. Trump has affected that race, too, with each of the contenders trying to make the case to Democratic voters that they would take on the president. Pledging to fight Baraka, though, has cast himself as the candidate who walks the walk when it comes to fighting Trump. 'I think people are clear on the fact that we're going to fight Donald Trump and his policies,' Baraka told NBC News in a phone interview. 'I don't think that that is a doubt in people's mind that we've always done that, and we will continue to do that, and [it's] not just lip service.' Baraka is suing New Jersey U.S. Attorney Alina Habba, a Trump ally and appointee, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when he was arrested last month at a federal immigration detention facility. The charges were dropped, but the moment captured national attention and was a flashpoint in the primary race. 'For someone who is willing to stand up for convictions and go and try to do something about it, you got my vote,' said Phillipsburg resident Ginamaria Gino, 55, who said Baraka's arrest moved her to support him in the primary. Other candidates have also focused on Trump as they make their pitches to voters. According to AdImpact, two-thirds of the TV ads from Democratic candidates and outside groups in the race have mentioned the president. The include the more moderate candidates in the race, like Rep. Josh Gottheimer, who has centered his campaign on lowering the state's high cost of living. Gottheimer's first TV ad used artificial intelligence to show him sparring with Trump in a boxing ring. 'I've not been afraid to fight with people who screw with us, whether that's Trump or whoever,' Gottheimer told NBC News after rallying with supporters in Woodcliff Lake. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, who some consider the front-runner, has also talked about taking on Trump.
