Portsmouth residents press council to declare city a 'safe haven' for LGBTQ people and protect gender‑affirming care

Dozens of Portsmouth residents urged the Portsmouth City Council on April 14 to begin a process declaring the city a safe haven for LGBTQ people and to adopt a parallel resolution protecting access to gender‑affirming health care.

Speakers across more than an hour of public comment asked council to open a formal process to consider a non‑funding declaration that would signal local support for LGBTQ residents and medical providers. "Such a process would not involve allocating any funds from the city," Laurie Swain told council at the start of the public‑comment period. "Please initiate a process in which Portsmouth claims the title of sanctuary city for LGBTQ people."

The request drew speakers from Shawnee State University student groups, local business owners and residents who described personal experiences with discrimination, threats and mental‑health harms. Several speakers cited data and studies tying gender‑affirming care and legal recognition to improved mental‑health outcomes; others described local incidents they said demonstrate the need for an official statement of protection. "Declaring Portsmouth a safe haven has no downside, but so much is to be gained by that declaration," Swain said.

Why it matters: Speakers framed a local resolution as both symbolic and practical. They said a resolution could help residents feel safer, could attract professionals and families who value inclusive communities, and could reduce the stigma that contributors tied to elevated suicide risk among LGBTQ youth. Multiple speakers requested that council consider a draft resolution already circulated by student and community groups; they emphasized that the measure, as presented, would not create new city spending.

Council response and next steps: Council members acknowledged receiving the request. City Manager Sutherland (remarks read by the mayor) said the council solicitor had received a copy of the proposal and that it would be reviewed; the manager indicated the item could be scheduled for the city manager's conference agenda for discussion before formal introduction. First‑ward Councilman Sean Dunn also asked the manager to place a discussion item so suggested modifications could be considered at the discussion level before the proposal moves to the conference agenda.

What speakers said (examples): - Laurie Swain, 1717 Poplar Street: "Please initiate a process in which Portsmouth claims the title of sanctuary city for LGBTQ people." She added the process would not require city funding. - Amanda Jacks, 1741 Carrie's Run: Described family experiences and asked council to make Portsmouth a sanctuary so her child "can feel safe and accepted in her hometown." - Abby Spears, 613 Chillicothe Street: Cited statistics she said show higher rates of substance use and homelessness among LGBTQ youth and said sanctuary status could be a low‑cost step to improve health outcomes and economic development. - Andrew Blevins, 122220 Third Street: Urged council to protect professional medical standards and said recent state and federal actions mean local affirmation matters now.

What the record shows (process and limits): The public comments were requests for the council to place a resolution on an upcoming agenda and to consider an official non‑funding designation. Council members and staff noted the administrative process: legal review by the city solicitor and scheduling through the city manager's conference agenda. No formal council vote on a sanctuary or safe‑haven resolution occurred at the April 14 meeting.

Community and policy context: Speakers referenced recent state legislation and federal guidance they said threaten access to care for transgender people and others; at least one commenter referenced House Bill 8 and another referenced actions by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Multiple speakers and student groups said the draft resolution they had supplied to council was modeled on similar declarations adopted by other Ohio cities and colleges.

Ending: Council did not vote on a resolution on April 14. The city manager and solicitor said the circulated draft had been received and would be reviewed; councilmembers asked that the item be scheduled for discussion at a future conference meeting so council can consider edits before formal introduction.