State Wins Court Ruling on HB 68, Emphasizes Legislative Authority and Child Protection

Joe Lyons • August 6, 2024

(COLUMBUS, Ohio) — In a significant legal victory, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael J. Holbrook ruled in favor of the state in the contentious House Bill 68 case. This decision underscores the state’s legislative power to regulate medical and surgical decisions affecting minors, particularly in the realm of gender-affirming care.

Bethany McCorkle, Communications Director for the Ohio Attorney General, released a statement celebrating the court’s decision: “The Attorney General applauds the trial 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. The law doesn’t say ‘no’ forever; it simply says ‘not now’ while the child is still growing.”

Ruling Summary

In the detailed ruling, the court addressed several constitutional challenges brought forward by the plaintiffs, which included transgender adolescents and their parents. The plaintiffs argued that HB 68 violated multiple clauses of the Ohio Constitution: the Single Subject Rule, the Health Care Freedom Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Due Process Clause.

Key Points from the Ruling:

Single Subject Rule: The court found that despite initial appearances, HB 68 maintains a common purpose of regulating transgender individuals, thus meeting the requirements of the Single Subject Rule under Ohio law.

Health Care Freedom Amendment: The court ruled that the Health Care Ban within HB 68 does not violate this amendment. The ban imposes penalties on medical providers offering gender-affirming care to minors, which the state has classified as “wrongdoing.”

Equal Protection Clause: Applying a rational-basis review, the court concluded that HB 68 is rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in protecting minors. The ruling noted the global reevaluation of gender-affirming care’s risks and outcomes.

Due Process Clause: The court upheld the ban, emphasizing the state’s vested interest in regulating medical treatments, particularly those deemed experimental and risky for minors.

Implications

This ruling marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over the regulation of gender-affirming care for minors. The court’s decision reinforces the state’s authority to intervene in medical decisions involving children, highlighting the balance between parental rights and state interests in public health and welfare.

As the discussion on transgender rights and healthcare continues to evolve, this ruling sets a precedent for how states may legislate on such sensitive issues. For those opposed to HB 68, the court’s message was clear: recourse lies within the democratic process and the ballot box, not the judicial system.

Next Steps

The plaintiffs and their supporters may seek to appeal the decision, potentially escalating the case to higher courts. Meanwhile, the ruling will likely influence similar legislative efforts across the country, as states navigate the complex intersection of healthcare, parental rights, and child protection.

This case underscores the judiciary’s role in interpreting legislative intent and constitutional protections, affirming the principle that substantial legislative decisions, especially those affecting vulnerable populations, must withstand rigorous judicial scrutiny.