Video Details

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine on Wednesday signed a bill into law that restricts transgender students from using bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.

Senate Bill (SB) 104 requires public school buildings and facilities to “designate each [communal] student restroom, locker room, changing room, or shower room” to be for “the exclusive use by students of the male biological sex only or by students of the female biological sex only.” Biological sex is defined in the bill to exclude an individual’s expression of gender identity other than what is on their official birth record. The bill also prevents schools from establishing gender-neutral restrooms.

The bathroom policy, known as the Protect All Students Act, was originally introduced as House Bill (HB) 183 before it was added to SB 104. HB 183 was sponsored by State Representatives Adam Bird and Beth Lear. Representative Bird explained that the “bottom line of this legislation is to protect students” and that he doesn’t “see that as a controversial issue.”

The ACLU of Ohio, however, “strongly urge[d] Governor DeWine to veto this bill and protect the rights of privacy of LGTBQ+ Ohioans statewide.” ACLU of Ohio Policy Director Jocelyn Rosnick commented that “SB 104 will create unsafe environments for trans and gender non-conforming individuals of all ages.”

Other states have moved to pass similar legislation. In October, for instance, the Odessa City Council in Texas approved a restriction for restroom use to biological sex. On Thursday, Speaker of the US House of Representatives Mike Johnson also restricted the use of gendered restrooms in the House to biological sex. The decision was based on HB Resolution 1579, which prohibits members and other employees of the House from “using single-sex facilities other than those corresponding to their biological sex.”

In January 2023, the ACLU filed a motion as an intervener in a federal lawsuit concerning an Ohio school district’s allowance of transgender students to use bathrooms that align with their gender identity. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments in late October, and the lawsuit is still ongoing.

The Senate passed SB 104 in mid-November by a 24-7 vote, sending the bill to the governor for approval. With his signature, the bill will now become law in 90 days.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, is appealing a county judge’s ruling temporarily striking down the state’s six-week abortion ban.

On Friday, Yost filed a notice of appeal with the court after Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Christian Jenkins ruled Ohio’s so-called heartbeat law was unconstitutional under an amendment that enshrines reproductive rights, which Ohio voters passed last year.

Yost’s office said there are provisions in the 2019 heartbeat law that aren’t addressed in the constitutional amendment, known as Issue 1.

“It is up to the courts to determine how conflicts between those two documents are resolved,” said Yost spokesperson Bethany McCorkle.

The law bans most abortions once fetal cardiac activity is detected, hence the heartbeat nickname. Cardiac activity can be detected as early as six weeks into pregnancy, which is before many women even know they’re pregnant, according to Planned Parenthood.

What Did Judge Jenkins Say in His Ruling?

Judge Jenkins wrote in his ruling from October, “Despite the adoption of a broad and strongly worded constitutional amendment, in this case and others, the State of Ohio seeks not to uphold the constituional protection of abortion rights, but to diminish and limit it.”

He was referring to Issue 1 which gives every Ohioan “the right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions.”

Jenkins said in October that when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022 and left abortion up to the states to decide, “Ohio’s Attorney General evidently didn’t get the memo.”

AG Yost Tries to Keep Part of Heartbeat Law

Yost acknowledged in court documents this spring that Issue 1 made Ohio’s abortion ban unconstitutional but tried to maintain other elements of the law, including certain notification and reporting aspects.

Those elements would have subjected physicians who perform abortions to felony criminal charges, fines, license suspensions or revocations and civil claims of wrongful death. They would have also required patients to make two in-person visits to their healthcare provider, wait 24 hours for an abortion and have that abortion recorded and reported.

Jenkins said in October Yost’s request to leave all but one provision of the law untouched even after the passage of an amendment protecting the right to abortion before the fetus is viable “dispels the myth” that the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling simply gives states power over the issue.

Years-Long Legal Battle

Jenkins’ October ruling was part of a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Ohio, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the law firm WilmerHale on behalf of a group of Ohio abortion providers. It is the second round of litigation challenging the abortion ban.

An initial lawsuit was brought in federal court in 2019, where the ban was first blocked under Roe v. Wade. After the 1973 landmark decision was overturned, Ohio’s ban was briefly allowed to go into effect.

Enforcement of the ban was then again paused by the state court system with opponents arguing it violated protections in Ohio’s constitution guaranteeing individual liberty and equal protection. Challengers of the ban also claimed it was unconstitutionally vague.

Newsweek reached out to the ACLU of Ohio via email late Wednesday afternoon for comment on Yost’s recent filing.

When Jenkins handed down his decision, Jessie Hill, cooperating attorney for the ACLU of Ohio, called it “a momentous ruling, showing the power of Ohio’s new Reproductive Freedom Amendment in practice.”

“The six-week ban is blatantly unconstitutional and has no place in our law,” she said in October.

This article includes reporting from The Associated Press.