Opponents tell committee House Bill 262’s “Natural Family Month” would stigmatize nontraditional families

The Ohio House Community Revitalization Committee on an unspecified date held a second hearing on House Bill 262, a resolution designating the weeks between Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as “Natural Family Month.” Numerous witnesses testified in opposition, saying the designation would stigmatize single‑parent, adoptive and LGBTQ families.

Planned Parenthood Advocates of Ohio’s director of public policy, Danielle Fierczyk, told the committee HB 262 “is a blatant insult to nontraditional unmarried single parent or LGBTQ plus families,” and warned the designation would exclude and demean households that do not fit the bill sponsors’ stated ideal. Fierczyk cited state demographic figures she presented during testimony: “approximately 557,000 Ohioans who identify as LGBTQ plus and over 490,000 single parent households,” and said about 42.6% of Ohio children are born to unmarried parents.

Opponents framed their statements around harms to children and to families already facing stigma. Deacon Nick Bates, director of the Hunger Network in Ohio and ordained in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, said all families “are beloved in the eyes of God” and urged lawmakers to direct resources — such as child tax credits, school funding, library services and hunger programs — to strengthen families rather than adopt exclusionary proclamations. Lise Regula of the nonprofit Men Having Babies described the bill as “weaponiz[ing] nostalgia” and said designating one family form as “natural” can be used later to justify policy restrictions.

Dwayne Stewart, executive director of Equality Ohio, called the phrase “natural family” dangerous and said the language “echoes” efforts elsewhere to police family structure; he urged the committee to reject the bill and consider broader testimony from Ohioans opposed to the resolution. Several families with same‑sex parents testified about their experience raising children in Ohio, saying their households are built on love and stability and would be harmed by an official designation that implies they are less legitimate.

Committee members questioned witnesses about intent, practical effect and alternatives. Some committee members said the measure is simply a ceremonial designation intended to celebrate a particular family form; opponents countered that state‑sanctioned distinctions carry social weight and can increase bullying and stigma. Witnesses tied the issue to broader budget and policy concerns — citing Medicaid coverage changes, food bank and library funding, access to fertility care, and foster care shortages — and argued that policy to support families should focus on material supports rather than symbolic designations.

No formal committee vote on the resolution occurred during the hearing; the transcript records extended testimony and questions but records no motion to advance the bill. The committee concluded the second hearing after the last witness finished; further scheduling, amendments, or votes were not specified in the record.

Evidence and quotes are taken from the committee transcript of the second hearing on HB 262.