Ohio lawmakers are catching heat because they proposed legislation that would protect parents from losing their rights in the event their child wants to become transgender, and the parents don’t agree with that decision. Two Republicans in the state legislature introduced HB 685 which is now sitting in committee and, if passed, would “prohibit a court from using a parent, guardian, or custodian’s refusal to allow a child to undergo gender-based treatment as a basis for determining custody of the child.” The bill has made national news because LGBTQ advocates oppose it and are arguing the legislation would “force teachers and doctors to out transgender children.”
A portion of the bill requires that “if a government agent or entity has knowledge that a child under its care or supervision has exhibited symptoms of gender dysphoria or otherwise demonstrates a desire to be treated in a manner opposite of the child’s biological sex, the government agent or entity with knowledge of that circumstance shall immediately notify, in writing, each of the child’s parents and the child’s guardian or custodian.” This is clearly not an attempt to violate a child’s privacy or rights, but to help parents come alongside and help their own child during a time of need. As they should.
The Republican lawmakers insist the bill is motivated by a more fundamental issue, which is keeping parental rights intact, and acknowledging that parents are more compelled to do what is in “the best interests of the child” above other organizations.
This legislation is undoubtedly a response to a case that took place in a juvenile court in Hamilton County last February, which stripped a teenage girl from the custody of her parents because she wanted to identify as male, and her parents would not allow the 17-year-old to begin hormone replacement therapy. Judge Sylvia Hendon ruled to give the teen’s grandparents full custody, including the ability to make medical decisions and provide insurance, because they were her next of kin who were most accepting of the teenager’s desire to identify as a male.
When the ruling was announced, CNN reported that Hendon insinuated this kind of case would repeat itself, and lawmakers may want to consider legislation that would help them determine parental authority better. “What is clear from the testimony presented in this case and the increasing worldwide interest in transgender care is that there is certainly a reasonable expectation that circumstances similar to the one at bar are likely to repeat themselves,” she wrote. “That type of legislation would give a voice and a pathway to youth similarly situated as (the teen) without attributing fault to the parents and involving them in protracted litigation which can and does destroy a family unit.”
Now, Ohio lawmakers have sought a legislative solution and are catching flak for it. Publications like Time are misrepresenting the bill and its intent entirely, and fail to even mention the young woman whose case inspired the need for legislation like this.
Regardless of the matter in question, parental authority must remain intact, but this is particularly important in the case of gender transitions, which does seem to cause more harm than good in most children and teenagers. Studies show the trend advocating for children and teenagers with gender dysphoria to transition to a gender different from their sex is harmful. But to top it off by stripping a parent of their rights to a child when they disagree with the transition process is truly asinine, and a shining example of authoritarian courts gone wrong.
Nicole Russell is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist in D.C. who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota. She was the 2010 recipient of the American Spectator’s Young Journalist Award.
