Latest news with #HouseBill68
Yahoo
30-07-2025
- Health
- 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
14-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Missouri House bill ignites debate on reducing limitations
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A Missouri House bill aimed at reducing the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is concerning for the partners at the Right Side Law Firm. 'You find individuals who have been hurt really, really bad,' said Tracey Chappell Vick, one of their managing partners. 'And so their treatment will go beyond the two-year statute of limitations that's being currently proposed.' Liberty 9-year-old battling cancer competes for national title The bill would decrease the statute of limitations from five years to two years. The bill's supporters say that it would 'help businesses thrive, reduce legal uncertainties and streamline litigation.' Chappell Vick says that she fears it will cause a backlog in our court system. 'When we are filing lawsuits within a two-year time period, I feel like we are starting to clog up the court systems,' she said. 'And that's something that we desperately do not want to do. We have enough cases in the court system, especially here in Jackson County.' House Bill 68 was introduced in the 2025 Missouri legislative session. It passed the House but never got a vote in the Senate. It's unclear if the bill will be reintroduced in the 2026 legislative session that starts on January 7. Melinda Marshall, another managing partner at Right Side, says that she has a preference after working in both Kansas and Missouri. 'We cannot help our clients in Kansas the way we can help them in Missouri,' she said. 'A lot of it has to do with the fact that they have such a short time frame in order to allow us to bring a lawsuit.' Both lawyers say that a two-year statute of limitations causes them to file suit without the evidence they'll need in their cases. Metro school districts react to new Missouri cell phone policy 'So even though you're in court quicker, you may be there two or three years longer than you should be because you're just not ready,' Marshall said. 'This bill is not giving plaintiffs' attorneys the opportunity to really flesh out what this case needs and how to really bring this case to a close,' Chappell Vick said. 'Sometimes, more often than not, it's forcing us to file a lawsuit. That's not what we want to do. And I believe that that is exactly what this bill is forcing us to do.' 25 other states have their statute of limitations set at two years. Chappell Vick says that other states should be following Missouri's lead, not the other way around. 'I believe that the way that it currently sits, we can give our clients the opportunity to finish up their treatment. We can then negotiate with the insurance companies if we need to. And if the negotiation doesn't go anywhere, our clients are fully treated and if they then need to file a lawsuit, they can then do so.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Youth transgender care ban still in effect while appeal plays out, Ohio Supreme Court rules
Apr. 29—The Ohio Supreme Court issued a ruling Tuesday allowing the state to continue a ban on gender-affirming care for youth while Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost appeals a lower court's decision. In March, the Tenth District Court of Appeals found House Bill 68 ― which prevents LGBTQ+ minors from accessing care such as hormone blockers, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and some mental health services ― to be unconstitutional. The appellate court ordered a trial court to enter a permanent injunction blocking it. The trial court, the Franklin County Common Pleas Court, never issued the injunction, so the ban on gender-affirming care for youth in Ohio has continued, ACLU of Ohio said. In appealing to the Ohio Supreme Court, Yost asked the court to pause the injunction while his appeal with the high court plays out. The Ohio Supreme Court granted the request on Tuesday. "It is a terrible shame that the Supreme Court of Ohio is permitting the state to evade compliance with the Ohio Constitution," said Freda Levenson, legal director at the ACLU of Ohio. The lawsuit was first filed on March 26, 2024 by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Ohio, and the global law firm Goodwin on behalf of two families who said their transgender adolescents would be negatively impacted by House Bill 68. Both families were seeking access to gender-affirming care, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy, describing plans to seek care in Chicago and Michigan if the ban took place, which it did. "Our clients have suffered tangible and irreparable harm during the eight months that HB 68 has been in place, including being denied essential health care in their home state," Levenson said. On Aug. 6, 2024, following a five-day trial in July, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas rejected the plaintiffs' challenge and allowed the ban on gender-affirming care to take effect. The plaintiffs appealed the decision on their argument that House Bill 68 violates the Ohio Constitution, with which a three-judge panel at the 10th District Court of Appeals agreed on two points and rendered the other two points as moot. A comment from Yost was not immediately available.
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Court rules Ohio's ban on gender-affirming care can be enforced amid suits
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a state law prohibiting minors from receiving gender-affirming care can be enforced as court battles proceed over the law's constitutionality. The state's high court granted a request from Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) to stay an appellate court ruling from March that blocked the state from enforcing the law, pending full review. The two-sentence Tuesday order was issued by the Republican chief justice, Sharon Kennedy. Republican Justice Pat Fischer and Democratic Justice Jennifer Brunner dissented. 'This cause is pending before the court as a jurisdictional appeal. Upon consideration of appellants' emergency motion for stay pending appeal, it is ordered by the court that the motion is granted,' the order read. The Ohio General Assembly, in 2023, passed House Bill 68, banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors. The bill was vetoed by the state's Republican governor, but both legislative chambers voted to overturn his veto. The ACLU of Ohio brought a lawsuit on behalf of two transgender minors challenging the legality of the statute. The law has been caught up in the courts for months. '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 HB 68 has been in place, including being denied essential health care in their home state,' the ACLU of Ohio's legal director, Freda Levenson, said in a Tuesday statement responding to the court order. 'The Court of Appeals was correct that HB 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,' Levenson continued. Yost, who is running for Ohio governor, posted on X announcing the court's ruling. In a statement to a Cleveland news outlet, his spokesperson, Bethany McCorkle, said the attorney general's office is pleased that the law 'protecting children from drug-induced gender transitions remains in effect as the case moves forward.' '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,' McCorkle continued in the statement. The Hill has reached out to the attorney general's office for comment. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
29-04-2025
- Health
- The Hill
Court rules Ohio's ban on gender-affirming care can be enforced amid suits
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a state law prohibiting minors from receiving gender-affirming care can be enforced as court battles proceed over the law's constitutionality. The state's high court granted a request from Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) to stay an appellate court ruling from March that blocked the state from enforcing the law, pending full review. The two-sentence Tuesday order was issued by the Republican chief justice, Sharon Kennedy. Republican Justice Pat Fischer and Democratic Justice Jennifer Brunner dissented. 'This cause is pending before the court as a jurisdictional appeal. Upon consideration of appellants' emergency motion for stay pending appeal, it is ordered by the court that the motion is granted,' the order read. The Ohio General Assembly, in 2023, passed House Bill 68, banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors. The bill was vetoed by the state's Republican governor, but both legislative chambers voted to overturn his veto. The ACLU of Ohio brought a lawsuit on behalf of two transgender minors challenging the legality of the statute. The law has been caught up in the courts for months. '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 HB 68 has been in place, including being denied essential health care in their home state,' the ACLU of Ohio's legal director, Freda Levenson, said in a Tuesday statement responding to the court order. 'The Court of Appeals was correct that HB 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,' Levenson continued. Yost, who is running for Ohio governor, posted on X announcing the court's ruling. In a statement to a Cleveland news outlet, his spokesperson, Bethany McCorkle, said the attorney general's office is pleased that the law 'protecting children from drug-induced gender transitions remains in effect as the case moves forward.' '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,' McCorkle continued in the statement.
