Ohio committee hears proponent testimony on bill to designate ‘Natural Family Month’

The House Community Revitalization Committee heard proponent testimony for House Bill 262 on a measure to designate the weeks between Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as “Natural Family Month.” Witnesses representing faith-based groups and family-policy organizations testified in favor of the bill and described it as a symbolic recognition of married, opposite-sex parenting as a social ideal.

Supporters told the committee the bill is intended as a civic signal rather than a regulatory change. “The sponsors of Ohio House Bill 262 have made a very modest proposal,” said Gary Langford, who testified later in the hearing. “They proposed that the Ohio Revised Code merely designate the weeks between Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as natural family month and that is the entire proposal.”

In opening testimony, Linda Harvey, president of Mission America and a board member of the Protect Ohio Children Coalition, urged lawmakers to adopt the bill as affirmation of motherhood and fatherhood. “I am Linda Harvey, I’m president of Mission America and I also serve on the board of the Protect Ohio Children Coalition, and I’m here to speak in favor of House Bill 262 and urge the committee to recommend adopting Natural Family Month,” she said.

Other proponent witnesses tied the designation to a wider effort to promote marriage and family stability. Ryan Foles, identified in his testimony as a legislative liaison for the Center for Christian Virtue, said the designation would be a low-cost, symbolic way for the state to communicate values. “This bill costs nothing in taxpayers, requires no complex bureaucracy, and creates no new regulations,” he said.

Several committee members questioned witnesses about the definition and potential effects of the designation. Ranking Member Brewer and others asked witnesses whether the bill’s repeated use of the phrase “natural family” would include same-sex parents or otherwise stigmatize families that do not match the witnesses’ stated ideal. Harvey replied the bill elevates “motherhood and fatherhood” and that, in her view, the term refers to “mom and dad, biological parents, or committed adoptive parents, or committed step parents of the opposite sex.” Foles and other witnesses described the bill as symbolic and said it was not intended to impose legal requirements.

Pastor (identified in testimony as) Santiago described his personal experience as an immigrant and pastor and said he supported the proposal because he believes it affirms family stability. “If the government in Ohio pass this bill and we say to the youth and to the kids and to the population, we believe in family,” he said. Other faith leaders who testified, including a pastor who described decades of counseling married couples, framed the designation as part of broader cultural work to encourage marriage and family formation.

Committee members repeatedly pressed witnesses on whether symbolic recognition is an adequate policy response to the structural challenges families face. Representative Humphrey and others asked whether proponents or their organizations also advocate for policies — such as childcare, workforce supports, or maternal health initiatives — that witnesses acknowledged can affect whether people marry or raise children. Witnesses said some of their organizations do community-level programming and premarital counseling, and supporters pointed to other legislation being discussed (for example, a referenced workforce/childcare bill) as separate policy responses.

No vote was taken during the hearing. Testimony on the bill included written materials delivered to members’ iPads and multiple proponent witnesses; the committee proceeded to questions after testimony concluded.

Why it matters: supporters said the bill is a low-cost, nonregulatory method for the state to signal priority for what they described as intact, opposite‑sex parenting and to encourage community programs that promote marriage and family stability. Critics in questioning warned the term “natural family” could be read as exclusionary and asked whether the designation would stigmatize other family forms or substitute for substantive policy measures such as childcare and financial supports.

What’s next: The hearing was a proponent-only testimony session followed by committee questions. The transcript does not record a committee vote or formal committee action on HB 262 during this meeting.