Timeline of Gender-Affirming Care Legislation in Ohio

Gov. DeWine vetoed House Bill 68 (HB 68), a dangerous measure that would ban lifesaving gender-affirming care for Ohioans under age 18.

DeWine followed up his announcement by signing an emergency executive order that bans gender-affirming surgeries for Ohioans under age 18. This order went into immediate effect even though no hospital or healthcare facility in Ohio currently performs gender-affirming surgeries on minors.

DeWine also rolled out proposed administrative rule changes that would greatly restrict access to gender-affirming care for both trans youth and adults.

Of the 22 states that have restricted gender-affirming care for trans youth, only one has restrictions that seek to restrict access to transgender people of all ages: Florida.

The Ohio Senate voted to override DeWine’s veto of HB 68.

The deadline closed to submit public comments opposing DeWine’s proposed anti-trans administrative rules to MHAS.

The Ohio Senate voted to override DeWine’s Veto.

The ACLU of Ohio announced it will file a lawsuit challenging HB 68 before it takes effect.

The deadline closed to submit public comments opposing DeWine’s proposed anti-trans administrative rules to the ODH.

Both MHAS and ODH released updated versions of their proposed administrative rules. The updated proposals still restrict access to care for youth. Restrictions to adult care were removed, but reporting requirements for both youth and adults are still included. MHAS opened another public comment period for their updated proposal. ODH submitted their proposal to the Joint Committee for Administrative Rule Review (JCARR).

MHAS’s second deadline closed to submit public comments opposing DeWine’s proposed anti-trans administrative rules.

Both MHAS and ODH filed their draft rules with the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR) ahead of their public hearings in March. JCARR’s jurisdiction over the proposed rules ends on Apr. 20, 2024.

Both MHAS and ODH announced that they would host a public hearing on DeWine’s proposed anti-trans administrative rules. Hearings for mid-March were announced by each department.

MHAS hosted an in-person public hearing. All verbal testimonies given were AGAINST the proposed, anti-trans administrative rules.

ODH hosted an online public hearing on Microsoft Teams. Again, all verbal testimonies given were against these rules.

The ACLU of Ohio filed a lawsuit challenging HB 68, citing that it violates four sections of the Ohio Constitution.

JCARR reviewed rules from both MHAS and ODH proposals. Two anti-trans rules (ODH 3701-59-06 and 3701-83-60) were recommended for validation, and they can be enforced by ODH as early as Apr. 25. All other rules were marked as TBR (to be refiled) for potential consideration by JCARR at a future date.

An Ohio state court issued a temporary restraining order against House Bill 68, the ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth, which stopped it from taking immediate effect for an additional two weeks.

A Franklin County Common Pleas Judge extended a temporary restraining order that is currently keeping HB 68 from taking effect. The order extends through May 20.

The court again extended the temporary restraining order that is currently keeping HB 68 from taking effect. The order extends through July 15, when a trial will take place.

A Franklin County judge ruled that HB 68 is constitutional and takes effect immediately. Minors currently receiving gender-affirming care can continue their current treatment. However, HB 68 bans any changes to meds, dosing, etc. The ACLU announced they will appeal this decision.