Ohio Statehouse revives bill to ban anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy, as cities take action
Senate Bill 71, proposed in February by Sens. Nickie J. Antonio (D-Lakewood) and Beth Liston (D-Dublin), would prohibit healthcare professionals in Ohio from engaging in conversion therapy with minors. The practices falsely claim to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity and have been discredited by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association.
Ohio leaders turn to Intel promises after President Donald Trump's call to repeal CHIPS Act
Practitioners of conversion therapy often employ 'aversive conditioning,' which includes the use of electric shock, deprivation of food and liquid, smelling salts and chemical-induced nausea, according to the American Medical Association. A 2021 The Trevor Project survey found that 13% of LGBTQ+ youth nationwide reported being subjected to conversion therapy, with 83% saying it occurred when they were under the age of 18.
If passed, S.B. 71 would require state licensing boards to suspend, revoke or refuse to issue or renew the license of the healthcare professional who was practicing conversion therapy with a minor.
Antonio and Liston reintroduced the bill after Westerville voted in February to become the 13th city in Ohio to can conversion therapy. While some argued the measure infringes on parental rights, many residents spoke in support of the ban, including a former Presbyterian pastor who said during the ordinance's second hearing that her daughter was a victim of conversion therapy. Watch a previous NBC4 report on Westerville's ban in the video player above.
Westerville joined 12 other Ohio municipalities, including Cleveland, Columbus, Toledo and Reynoldsburg, that have banned the practices. Brandon West, a 23-year-old Lorain resident, championed his home city last year to become the 12th to ban conversion therapy, and has since begun advocating for Cuyahoga County to do the same.
Jim Tressel on his interest in running for Ohio governor in 2026
Those Ohio cities passed conversion therapy ordinances because the Statehouse didn't advance previous proposals to implement a statewide ban. Although former Rep. Mary Lightbody (D-Westerville) introduced the 'Anti-Conversion Therapy Act' last year in the General Assembly, which would make law in Ohio the same parameters as S.B. 71, the legislation didn't receive a committee hearing.
While Lightbody's proposal, then House Bill 220, received bipartisan allyship, Antonio's and Liston's S.B. 71 has yet to gain Republican support and is only co-sponsored by other members of the Senate Democratic Caucus.
Antonio, who was Ohio's first openly gay Statehouse lawmaker, also lost Republican support earlier this year for a bill to ban discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community. Named the 'Ohio Fairness Act,' the legislation was reintroduced for the 12th time and would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.
The act has also never passed the Statehouse to be signed into law, but has traditionally garnered bipartisan support. Every member of the Senate Democratic Caucus and two Republican senators co-sponsored the bill when it was reintroduced for the 11th time during the summer of 2023. Now, the Fairness Act is also only co-sponsored by members of the Senate Democratic Caucus.
Cold case suspect extradited to Columbus after DNA links him to 1992 rape, murder
Along with failing to ban conversion therapy, Ohio lawmakers have yet to repeal Ohio's dormant same-sex marriage ban and remove antiquated HIV criminalization laws passed in the 1980s. Instead, the Statehouse has passed a bill to ban certain healthcare for transgender youth and education legislation that opponents say will result in the 'outing' of students, which caused an increased number of LGBTQ+ youth to call a crisis hotline.
S.B. 71 has been assigned to the Senate Health Committee, where it could receive hearings open for public testimony.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
23 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
House committee launches investigation into California's high-speed rail project
A bipartisan congressional committee is investigating whether California's High-Speed Rail Authority knowingly misrepresented ridership projections and financial outlooks, as alleged by the Trump administration, to secure federal funding. In a letter sent to Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy on Tuesday, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chair James Comer (R-KY) requested a staff briefing and all communications and records about federal funding for the high-speed rail project and any analysis over the train's viability. 'The Authority's apparent repeated use of misleading ridership projections, despite longstanding warnings from experts, raises serious questions about whether funds were allocated under false pretenses,' Comer wrote. Comer's letter copied Congressman Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the committee who has also voiced skepticism about the project. Garcia, whose districts represent communities in Southern California, was not immediately available for comment. An authority spokesperson called the House committee's investigation 'another baseless attempt to manufacture controversy around America's largest and most complex infrastructure project,' and added that the project's chief executive Ian Choudri previously addressed the claims and called them 'cherrypicked and out-of-date, and therefore misleading.' Last month, the Trump administration pulled $4 billion in federal funding from the project meant for construction in the Central Valley. After a months-long review, prompted by calls from Republican lawmakers, the administration found 'no viable path' forward for the fast train, which is billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule. The administration also questioned whether the authority's projected ridership counts were intentionally misrepresented. California leaders called the move 'illegal' and sued the Trump administration for declaratory and injunctive relief. Gov. Gavin Newsom said it was 'a political stunt' and a 'heartless attack on the Central Valley.' The bullet train was proposed decades ago as a way to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours by 2020. While the entire line has cleared environmental reviews, no stretch of the route has been completed. Construction has been limited to the Central Valley, where authority leaders have said a segment between Merced and Bakersfield will open by 2033. The project is also about $100 billion over its original budget of $33 billion. Even before the White House pulled federal funding, authority leaders and advisers repeatedly raised concerns over the project's long-term financial sustainability. Roughly $13 billion has been spent so far — the bulk of which was supplied by the state, which has proposed $1 billion per year towards the project. But Choudri, who started at the authority last year, has said the project needs to find new sources of funding and has turned focus toward establishing public-private partnerships to supplement costs.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration reportedly wants a 10% stake in Intel
The Trump administration is in talks to take a roughly 10% stake in Intel in a deal that would make the U.S. the largest shareholder in the struggling chipmaker, according to a report. The federal government is mulling an investment that would convert some or all of the grants allocated to the company under the U.S. bipartisan Chips and Science Act into equity, Bloomberg reported. Intel was granted a combined $10.9 billion in grants under the act for commercial and military manufacturing, which former President Joe Biden signed into law in 2022. That figure would equate to a little over 10% of Intel's $103.8 billion market value as of Aug. 18, though sources told the news outlet that the White House has not yet decided whether to go ahead with the plan. The potential investment, first reported last week , would support Intel's plans to build a factory hub in Ohio and would come at a time when Intel has been cutting jobs as part of a cost cutting drive, having fallen behind rivals like Nvidia in the global AI chipmaking race. A stake in Intel would be President Donald Trump's latest try at intervening in the chipmaking industry. Earlier this week, the U.S. government announced a deal that would have two of Intel's rivals, Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, pay it 15% of their revenues from sales in China. The reported deal with Intel would also mark a sharp turnaround after Trump demanded last week that its CEO Lip-Bu Tan resign over purported connections to the Chinese government, describing him as someone who's 'conflicted' in his business dealings. 'The CEO of INTEL is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately. There is no other solution to this problem. Thank you for your attention to this problem!' Trump wrote in an Aug. 7 social media post. Tan took over Intel in March, as the company was locked in negotiations with the Trump administration to shift its chip-making plants to a Taiwanese rival. Intel is seen by many as the best chance for the U.S. to compete with global rivals like TSMC, and the Ohio plant would help the country make sure it can make high-end semiconductors on home soil. However, it has struggled amid stagnant sales and ongoing losses in recent years, with the likes of Nvidia surging ahead. Already under Tan it has announced plans to lay off 20% of its staff to pare back bureaucracy within the company. The funding under the Chips Act was meant to be directed to fortify Intel's domestic computer chip manufacturing with new projects including the Ohio plant, and was supposed to be dispersed over time. A deal with the government would not necessarily mean significantly more cash, but it could mean the company gets hold of it faster. Trump announced a new 100% tariff on semiconductor imports earlier in August, but included an enormous caveat that could spare tech firms like Intel. U.S. companies that have planned a domestic spending spree in the country are likely to avoid the sizable import tax. Intel has stated it will pour $100 billion in new U.S. corporate spending over the next five years, a move it had announced before the 2024 election. Intel and U.S. government did not immediately respond to Quartz's requests for comment.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US attorney will no longer bring felony charges against people for carrying rifles or shotguns in DC
WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal prosecutors in the nation's capital will no longer bring felony charges against people for possessing rifles or shotguns in the District of Columbia, according to a new policy adopted by the leader of the nation's largest U.S. attorney's office. That office will continue to pursue charges when someone is accused of using a shotgun or rifle in a violent crime or has a criminal record that makes it illegal to have a firearm. Local authorities in Washington can prosecute people for illegally possessing unregistered rifles and shotguns. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said in a statement that the change is based on guidance from the Justice Department and the Office of Solicitor General and conforms with two Supreme Court decisions on gun rights. Pirro, a former Fox News host, has been a vocal critic of local officials' crime-fighting efforts since Republican President Donald Trump installed her in office in May. Her policy shift means federal prosecutors will not purse charges under the D.C. law that made it illegal to carry rifles or shotguns, except in limited cases involving permit holders. The change also overlaps with Trump's declaration of a crime emergency in the city, flooding the streets of Washington with patrols of hundreds of federal agents and National Guard members. The White House says 76 firearms have been seized since the crackdown started this month. The new policy also coves large-capacity magazines, but it does not apply to handguns. 'We will continue to seize all illegal and unlicensed firearms, and to vigorously prosecute all crimes connected with them,' Pirro said, adding that she and Trump "are committed to prosecuting gun crime.' Pirro said a blanket ban on possessing shotguns and rifles violates the Supreme Court's ruling in 2022 that struck down a New York gun law and held that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. She also pointed to the high court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller striking down the city's ban on handguns in the home.
