Judge to render verdict next week in Ohio gender-affirming care trial

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) -- On Friday both sides rested their cases in a trial about gender-affirming healthcare.

It was a five day live trial to determine whether House Bill 68 can take effect.

Hb68 contains both the “Saving Adolescents from Experimentation Act,” which bans minors for receiving gender-affirming care in Ohio, and the “Save Women’s Sports Act,” which bans transgender athletes from playing on teams that align with their gender identity.

Friday morning began with more testimony by witness brought forward by the defense.

One of their witnesses was Chloe Cole, a de-transitioner who, after receiving gender-affirming medication and surgery in California as a teenager, decided it was not best for her. In direct questioning, the defense asked Cole why she thought it important to tell her story in Ohio, despite her care taking place across the country.

“I think it’s important that people know the truth of what these treatments do to young girls and boys, a perspective that I wish that I had when I was 13,” she said. “I think parents and families everywhere deserve to know about stories like mine.”

Throughout the week, the court also heard testimony from several doctors, brought by both sides of the case, and parents of transgender minors in the state brought by the plaintiffs.

Judge Michael Holbrook, who is presiding over the case, said the law will remain on pause until he issues his decision.

“I don’t know which way I am going to go yet; I have some thoughts in my brain but that doesn’t mean a decision,” he said.

There were no live closing arguments in this case. Holbrook ordered both sides to submit their closing arguments in writing by Monday at 5 p.m. in no more than 20 pages. He will then give each side until Wednesday at 5 p.m. to submit a rebuttal in no more than 12 pages.

“I think at the end of the day, regardless of how we present our arguments to the court, the court's going to see that this is a major concern for Ohio families and the science is not in plaintiff's favor,” Deputy Attorney General Erik Clark, who is part of the defense, said.

“We've shown that there are families in Ohio that need critical care for their transgender children. It's essential for their mental health," Legal Director for the ACLU of Ohio Freda Levenson, who is on behalf of the plaintiff, said. "And we've shown that the families would have to travel out of state or move out of state to obtain this critical care if HB68 comes into effect.”

Levenson said she believes they made a strong case, and while they partially have the burden of proof, so does the defense. Levenson said the Ohio Constitution is on their side, though that was not brought up much during the trial.

“I think everyone agrees that gender affirming care is health care. It's provided at all of the major children's hospitals across Ohio. We're very fortunate in Ohio that we have world class hospitals, and they are all providing it,” Levenson said. “So, this is health care. And under the Constitution, Ohioans have the right to health care.”

“What we've shown is we need to make sure that we're taking care of all Ohio kids and that we're going to fight for all Ohio kids,” Clark said. “And the facts to this this week have shown that we don't know nearly enough to be able to go forward with this kind of treatment at such a young age.”