Ohio Supreme Court keeps ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth while case continues
'Gavel,' a sculpture by Andrew F. Scott, outside the Supreme Court of Ohio. Credit: Sam Howzit / Creative Commons.
The Ohio Supreme Court is keeping the ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth as the case goes through litigation.
In March, the 10th District Court of Appeals partially blocked the state from enforcing House Bill 68, a ban on gender-affirming care for LGBTQ+ youth, allowing doctors to continue prescribing puberty blockers and hormone therapy.
Attorney General Dave Yost filed a motion with the high court to stay the law, or pause changes, until a full review by the justices. This was granted Tuesday.
H.B. 68 went into effect in 2024. The controversial legislation prevented LGBTQ+ minors from accessing care such as hormone blockers, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and some mental health services.
'There is no way I'll stop fighting to protect these unprotected children,' Yost said, in part, in a statement from the March ruling.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The law has been in court for months now, with the ACLU of Ohio arguing that it is unconstitutional and goes against parental rights and the right to bodily autonomy.
'It is a terrible shame that the Supreme Court of Ohio is permitting the state to evade compliance with the Ohio Constitution. Our clients have suffered tangible and irreparable harm during the eight months that H.B. 68 has been in place, including being denied essential health care in their home state,' Freda Levenson, ACLU legal director, said. 'The Court of Appeals was correct that H.B. 68 violates at least two separate provisions of the Ohio Constitution. We will continue to fight this extreme ban as the case goes ahead before the Supreme Court of Ohio.'
The law also prohibits trans athletes from participating in middle, high school or college athletics on teams that align with their identity.
In July 2024, parents and doctors testified to prevent the state from enforcing the ban, citing that the ban would 'deny basic human rights.'
Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on Twitter and Facebook.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
McCAUGHEY: Democrats waging war on small-town values and property values
Across the U.S., Democrats are waging war to crush a lifestyle they abhor. Call it small-town America: Single-family neighbourhoods, quiet streets, town centres stamped with their historic character and almost no signs of the vagrancy and homeless encampments that plague cities. Democrats want you to have none of this. If you've worked for years to save up for a home in one of these havens, forget about it. The Democratic Party is using brute legal force to remake towns using a cookie-cutter formula that forces each to have the same proportion of houses and apartments, the same mix of low-, middle- and upper-income residents and the same reliance on public transit, all controlled by state politicians. Any town that resists gets shamed as 'segregated', though this isn't about race, and 'snobby.' On May 31, the Connecticut legislature passed H.B. 5002, which should be called the Destroy Connecticut Towns Act. It's headed to Gov. Ned Lamont's desk for a signature. The new law dictates how many low-income and moderate-income apartments each Connecticut town must provide and mandates that towns also foot the bill for the schools, parks, public transportation and other services low-income residents will need. Local taxes will soar. The bill explicitly says its purpose is to ensure 'economic diversity' in each town. This is about social engineering, not remedying housing shortages. Democrat Bob Duff, the state senate majority leader, says 'it's extremely important … that we don't segregate people based on a ZIP code.' Everyone, regardless of income, should have the opportunity to choose to live in any town. The bill mandates that the wealthiest towns, mostly in lower Fairfield County, provide most of the new housing, even though that raises the cost. Land costs less in other towns and lower-income people, who this bill is supposed to serve, are more likely to find bus transportation and affordable stores in these other towns as well. Connecticut lawmakers are nixing local rules. Ordinances that protect the appearance of a town have to be overruled. The bill states that multifamily buildings of up to 24 units will no longer have to provide off-street parking. Envision cars lining every residential street. Towns will also be forced to welcome vagrants who want to sleep in parks and public lots. The bill outlaws 'hostile architecture,' meaning park benches with armrests and divided seating, or stone walls with spikes on top that deter sleeping in the rough. Instead, the bill launches a program of mobile showers and mobile laundry services on trucks to serve the homeless wherever they choose. Picture the mobile showers pulling up to Greenwich Common Park on the town's main street, or Waveny Park in New Canaan. How can kids walk around town with their pals if there are homeless encampments? Judge Glock, director of research at the Manhattan Institute think tank, points out that the homeless amount to 1% of the population in Los Angeles but commit 25% of the homicides. Inviting the homeless means inviting crime and drugs. Californicating the small towns of Connecticut by encouraging public camping and vagrancy 'is frightening,' says Glock. New York Democrats are also taking aim at small-town living. A bill sponsored by state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal would outlaw local towns from setting minimum lot sizes over one-eighth of an acre near the town centre and a half acre everywhere else. Postage stamp sizes. Riverhead, New York, town supervisor Tim Hubbard is vowing to sue. 'We're trying to keep our community as rural as it can be … We don't think the state should be zoning our town.' Hoylman-Sigal chooses to live on the west side of Manhattan, but who is he to impose a population-dense lifestyle on small-town New Yorkers? Similarly, in New Jersey, Democratic Gov. Tim Murphy is pushing lawmakers to override local ordinances and impose the same kinds of 'reforms' as those in the Connecticut bill. In all these states and across the country, small-town Americans need to fight back. There is no constitutional right to live in a wealthy town with single-family homes and leafy, quiet streets. It's something you earn. Once you've purchased a home, you have the right to protect its value. It's time to put blue-state politicians on notice that their battle to destroy our suburbs and small towns will be resisted at the voting booth and in court.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Court halts controversial Oklahoma immigration law that would create new state charge
Oklahoma can't enforce a controversial state immigration law while a related lawsuit works its way through court, a federal judge in Oklahoma City has ruled. U.S. District Judge Bernard Jones issued the injunction Tuesday, June 3, weeks after he had issued a similar, but shorter-term, order in the case. The lawsuit centers on a 2024 law known as House Bill 4156, which would let state courts prosecute people for the crime of "impermissible occupation." Civil rights groups want the court to throw out the law as unconstitutional. They contend the federal government has the exclusive right to regulate immigration. Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond has countered that Oklahoma should be allowed to enforce the law. Jones said in his ruling that while Oklahoma officials may have understandable concerns about the impacts of undocumented immigration, the federal government has the sole right to control immigration law. "In the end, that is why H.B. 4156 must fail — not to excuse unlawful presence or shield criminal conduct, but because it is what the Constitution demands," Jones wrote. Jones was nominated to the bench in 2019 by Republican President Donald Trump during his first term in office. Trump has made clamping down on illegal immigration a key focus of his second term. Under President Joe Biden, the U.S. sued Oklahoma in 2024 in an attempt to block HB 4156 from taking effect. But federal prosecutors dropped out of the case after Trump took office. The government's exit put the case in legal limbo. In May, several plaintiffs, including the ACLU, revived the legal challenge to the law and asked a judge to put it on hold until the lawsuit worked its way through court. Jones granted that request, writing that he was unconvinced by arguments that Oklahoma has any power to enforce state-level immigration laws. "The federal government retains, as it always has, 'broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens,'" Jones wrote, citing a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. "And noncitizens who violate federal immigration law—whether in Oklahoma or elsewhere—remain subject to that authority, if and when the federal government chooses to act." Noor Zafar, an attorney for the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said the groups suing to block the law were grateful for Jones' decision to put the law on hold. 'Every single day that HB 4156 is in effect, it puts immigrants in Oklahoma at tremendous risk,' Zafar said in a statement. Drummond, who has been a vocal supporter of the law, did not immediately respond to a request sent to a spokesperson for comment on the injunction. He had previously accused the court of 'protecting admitted lawbreakers from federal and state consequences' after Jones issued a temporary restraining order in the case. Oklahoma's HB 4156: What to know about state's paused immigration law, Trump policies Drummond's office also had asked Jones to block two plaintiffs from suing under the fictitious names of Barbara Boe and Christopher Coe, rather than their legal names. Court filings described Boe as a 51-year-old Mexican national who lives in Tulsa and Coe as a 37-year-old Mexican national who lives in Broken Bow. They had argued that using their real names would open them up to law enforcement scrutiny. Jones agreed, saying it would "effectively place a target on their backs simply for seeking judicial review" of a state law that they claim is unconstitutional. He pushed back against the state's argument that allowing Boe and Coe to use pseudonyms would protect "federal lawbreakers from the federal consequences of their actions." He described that argument as a mischaracterization that did not "move the needle." "After all, this case concerns a state immigration law, and the federal government stands in no better — or worse position to prosecute or remove plaintiffs for federal immigration violations by virtue of their pseudonymity," Jones wrote. If HB 4156 is ultimately allowed to go into effect, the law would establish the misdemeanor crime of "impermissible occupation," with punishment being up to one year in a county jail, a $500 fine or both. Any subsequent convictions would trigger felony charges and the possibility of spending two years in state prison or paying a $1,000 fine. People convicted of impermissible occupation would be forced to leave Oklahoma within 72 hours of being released. This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Oklahoma's controversial anti-immigration law HB 4156 halted again
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Enforcement of Oklahoma immigration law blocked indefinitely
Protestors at a Hispanic Cultural Day rally outside the Oklahoma State Capitol on May 15, 2024, hold flags representing the United States, Mexico and other Spanish-speaking countries. Hundreds gathered to protest the newly enacted House Bill 4156, which created the criminal offense of impermissible occupation. (Photo by Nuria Martinez-Keel/Oklahoma Voice) OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma City federal judge this week placed an indefinite ban on enforcement of a state law criminalizing undocumented immigrants living in Oklahoma. The decision from U.S. District Judge Bernard Jones extends the two-week hold he implemented for House Bill 4156 on May 20 to last until he makes a final ruling on a lawsuit challenging the statute. HB 4156, enacted last year, created the state crime of 'impermissible occupation,' threatening fines and jail time for immigrants living in Oklahoma without legal residency. Past rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court and judges across the country have made clear that immigration enforcement is the federal government's responsibility, not an individual state's, Jones wrote in his decision issued Tuesday. Federal law preempts state laws on the issue, rendering Oklahoma's new statute unenforceable, the judge decided. 'In the end, that is why H.B. 4156 must fail — not to excuse unlawful presence or shield criminal conduct, but because it is what the Constitution demands,' Jones wrote. Oklahoma still has the power to prosecute U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike for crimes that might stem from unlawful immigration, the judge said. Attorney General Gentner Drummond had contended HB 4156 helps law enforcement stop drug trafficking and other crimes. Drummond called Jones' previous two-week hold 'outrageous,' 'perverse' and 'contrary to the rule of law.' 'The attorney general is committed to ensuring the state has the agency to protect Oklahomans,' Drummond's spokesperson, Phil Bacharach, said Thursday. 'HB 4156 is a commonsense and necessary law and Oklahoma must be able to enforce it.' Jones blocked enforcement of the law for nine months last year after former President Joe Biden's Administration filed a lawsuit. The ban lifted when President Donald Trump withdrew Biden's case. Two undocumented residents of Oklahoma and two immigrant-focused organizations based in the state refiled the lawsuit last month, contending HB 4156 is unconstitutional. Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Tulsa law firm Rivas & Associates are representing the plaintiffs. 'Once again, the court has made it clear that the state of Oklahoma may not enforce HB 4156 while our litigation proceeds,' ACLU of Oklahoma legal director Megan Lambert said. 'People who are immigrants join the long American tradition of coming here in search of a better life and the freedom and opportunity we offer. Anti-immigrant policies do not represent our state, and we are grateful for the relief this provides while we continue to fight for the rights and safety of Oklahoma's immigrant communities.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
