Ohio Legislature Enacts HB 68 Over Governor's Veto
Columbus, OH – The Ohio General Assembly has overridden Governor Mike DeWine's veto of House Bill 68, enacting a law that bans gender-affirming surgeries and the initiation of hormone therapies for minors. The law, passed despite the Governor's objections, reflects concerns voiced by supporters about irreversible medical procedures for those under 18 and aims to strengthen parental involvement, according to proponents. The override followed intense debate about medical ethics, parental rights, and the appropriate healthcare for transgender youth.
Key Provisions of House Bill 68
The legislation broadly restricts access to gender-affirming care for minors. It prohibits doctors from performing gender-affirming surgeries on individuals under 18. Furthermore, it bans healthcare providers from prescribing puberty blockers or hormone therapy to *new* minor patients seeking gender transition care. The law includes provisions allowing minors already receiving hormone treatments before the effective date to continue their care under certain conditions.
HB 68 also contains provisions allowing medical practitioners to decline providing or referring for services based on conscience or religious beliefs. Critics argue this could impede access to care, while supporters view it as a necessary protection for healthcare providers.
Governor DeWine's Veto and Position
Governor DeWine had initially vetoed HB 68, citing concerns about governmental overreach into family medical decisions and the potential harm to transgender youth already receiving care. In his veto message, he stated, "Ultimately, I believe this is about protecting human life... Were I to sign House Bill 68, or were House Bill 68 to become law, Ohio would be saying that the State, that the government, knows better than the parents what is best for a child." He instead favored addressing concerns through administrative rules, proposing regulations requiring comprehensive care plans and data reporting for gender-affirming care.
Reactions and Implications Following Override
The legislature's decision to override the veto drew strong reactions. Supporters celebrated the enactment of the restrictions as a necessary step for child protection. Opponents, including major medical associations and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, condemned the law, arguing it interferes with medical decisions and will harm vulnerable young people by denying access to medically necessary care. Legal challenges were filed shortly after the law took effect.
“This law is a dangerous overreach that puts vulnerable children at risk,” said a representative from Equality Ohio. “It denies transgender youth the evidence-based medical care they need and deserve, disregarding the consensus of major medical organizations, and sends a harmful message that they are not valued or supported.”
The Broader Context of Gender-Affirming Care Bans
Ohio joins several other states in enacting laws restricting gender-affirming care for minors. This trend highlights a contentious national debate surrounding the appropriate medical care for transgender youth, parental rights, and the age at which individuals can consent to complex medical treatments. Research on the long-term outcomes of gender-affirming care is ongoing.
Resources for Further Information
- Ohio General Assembly (for HB 68 text)
- Governor DeWine's Veto Message
- American Academy of Pediatrics
- American College of Pediatricians
- Equality Ohio