Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transgender Policy Hb96 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trans advocates and clinicians urge Senate to strike gender‑definition and service restrictions from HB 96
Summary
Multiple transgender advocates, clinicians and statewide organizations testified against provisions in the House budget that would define sex as strictly binary and restrict gender‑affirming services, warning the measures would harm youth, reduce access to shelters and mental‑health care, and invite legal challenges.
Transgender advocates, clinicians and statewide groups told the Senate Health Committee that several provisions added to the House version of HB 96 would harm transgender, nonbinary and intersex Ohioans by restricting access to gender‑affirming care, shelters and health‑system recognition.
What witnesses said: Dara Adkisson of TransOhio asked senators to reject sections 757–759 of the proposed budget (language referenced by witnesses) that define sex as binary and said such language contradicts major medical association guidance. Catherine LaPree, a nurse practitioner specializing in LGBTQ+ primary care and gender medicine, told the committee that the American Psychological Association opposes bans on gender‑affirming care and that such bans obstruct evidence‑based clinical practice and parental shared decision‑making.
Advocacy concerns: Testimony warned that language limiting services in youth shelters and mental‑health facilities could force providers to refuse help to trans youth or return them to unsafe homes. Testifiers described increased risk of homelessness, mental‑health deterioration and suicide among trans youth if shelters and providers lost funding or authority to affirm care.
Legal and procedural notes: TransOhio and other groups said the contested language mirrors prior executive order text that has spawned federal litigation and could invite challenges if folded into the state budget. Several witnesses urged lawmakers to focus on evidence‑based policy and to remove the contested provisions from a funding bill.
Ending: Advocates asked the Senate to strike or amend the House language to avoid harm to vulnerable youth and to preserve clinical decision‑making based on evidence and professional guidelines.
