Ohio Attorney General seeks stay after appeals court overturns gender-affirming care ban
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has filed a motion with the 10th District Court of Appeals, seeking to stay the court's recent ruling that overturned a state law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender adolescents. The motion comes as the state prepares to appeal the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The appeals court ruled that House Bill 68, which banned puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors seeking gender transition, violated the Ohio Constitution. The court found that the law infringed on the Health Care Freedom Amendment and other constitutional provisions.
"This fight is far from over – and until it is, there’s no sense in toggling the law on and off like a light switch," Attorney General Yost stated. "We urge the appeals court to clarify that the law remains in effect so there is no confusion as the case heads to the Ohio Supreme Court."
The original lawsuit, filed by transgender adolescents Madeline Moe and Grace Goe, challenged the constitutionality of H.B. 68, which was enacted in 2024. The law, which overrode the Governor's veto, also sought to regulate other aspects of transgender individuals' lives, including participation in sports and parental custodial rights.
The appeals court's decision focused on the provisions that prohibited medical providers from prescribing puberty-delaying medication and gender-affirming hormone therapy to individuals under 18 for gender transition. The court noted that the same treatments remain unrestricted for minors when prescribed for other medical conditions and adults seeking gender transition.
In its ruling, the appeals court emphasized the prevailing medical consensus, citing guidelines from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and the Endocrine Society. These guidelines, the court stated, represent the accepted standard of care for treating gender dysphoria in the United States.
The court also addressed the state's arguments, which relied on studies and practices from certain European countries. While acknowledging the concerns raised by those studies, the appeals court noted that none of those countries had implemented a categorical ban like H.B. 68.
The Attorney General's office, in its motion for a stay, maintains that the law is constitutional and necessary to protect children from irreversible medical decisions. "We look forward to proving once again that the legislature acted properly in enacting this constitutional law, which protects our children from irreversible medical decisions," Yost said. "I remain confident that the law will be upheld."
The motion for a stay is now before the 10th District Court of Appeals, as the state prepares to take the case to the Ohio Supreme Court. The outcome of these legal battles will have implications for transgender adolescents in Ohio seeking gender-affirming medical care.
