Legislators poised to undercut DeWine on principled veto of anti-trans bill: Thomas Suddes
Ohioans heartened by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine’s eloquent veto of the General Assembly’s anti-transgender bill, Substitute House Bill 68 — prepare to be embarrassed, again, by the legislature.
The Republican-run Ohio House of Representatives, then the state Senate, also GOP-led, could override DeWine’s veto as soon as this week.
That’s how it goes in a General Assembly that for 20-plus years has taken off after sexual minorities to distract Ohioans from the real problems afflicting the state — lagging per-capita income; the deindustrialization of Northeast Ohio; and the fact that many young Ohioans don’t see a future for themselves in their home state.
HB 68 would forbid minors to obtain gender-affirming medical care in Ohio, while also forbidding transgender Ohio women to participate in women’s high school and college sports.
As DeWine said in vetoing this legislative blunderbuss, “Were [HB 68] to become law, Ohio would be saying that the state, that the government, knows what is best medically for a child rather than the two people who love that child the most, the parents.”
Moreover, the vetoed bill makes a mockery of the doctor-patient relationship that so many Republicans cited for so long to fight government-sponsored health care programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.
Those are some of the same legislators who said the state had no business trying to combat the COVID pandemic because, hey, that’s what doctors are for. And HB 68 also directly intervenes in families’ decision-making about the most personal and private of topics, sexuality, and personal identity.
As for HB 68′s stab at transgender athletes, that’s a solution in search of a problem. But packaging athletics with transgender care gave HB 68 curb appeal in the General Assembly and in polling because, hey, while gender identity may be a mystery to many people, sports aren’t.
All in all, HB 68 is anything but harmless: It will do real damage to young Ohioans at a time in their lives when figuring out one’s place in a community is a central concern, especially so in a state whose legislature says, in so many words, “We don’t want you.”
The fact that the House and Senate roll calls on HB 68 were so rigidly party-line demonstrates that the issue has nothing to do with the welfare of young people, but everything to do with the culture wars afflicting U.S. (and Ohio) politics. It can be much more satisfying emotionally to pound on a minority group than to ask why, for instance, the United States has been more or less continuously at war since Pearl Harbor, or why poverty persists in what arguably is the richest economy in world history.
But those are questions that aren’t easily addressed in 60-second campaign ads. Gender, race or sexuality? That’s the ticket in Ohio now.
DeWine deserves enormous credit for deciding what he did and saying what he said about HB 68. He opposes gender-altering surgery on minors and said clinics he’s spoken with don’t provide it. Perhaps to address legislators’ potential veto override of HB 68 — which forbids such surgery — DeWine issued an executive order Friday also forbidding it.
Still, to see even otherwise reasonable Statehouse Republicans vote “yes” on HB 68 demonstrates the partisan political fear that dominates decision-making on Capitol Square. (Notably, DeWine’s heir-apparent, Republican Lt. Gov. Jon Husted, endorsed HB 68.)
Thanks to gerrymandering, elections to the Ohio House of Representatives and the Ohio Senate are often decided in Republican primaries, where somebody can always be fielded to run to the right of an incumbent — hence the fear of voting “no” on HB 68. As it is, only one Republican in the entire General Assembly voted “no” on the bill’s final passage — Sen. Nathan Manning, of North Ridgeville. That speaks volumes about the prospect of an override by the legislature of DeWine’s veto. Still, the governor’s veto message is a legacy text for his governorship.
Meanwhile, so much for the party of personal liberty, which seems much more concerned about regulating Ohioans’ private lives and reproductive health than, say, policing Ohio’s biggest special interests — banks, insurance companies and electric utilities. They can fight back or at least be squeezed to donate — unlike an adolescent Ohioan trying to thread his or her way through a cold world.
Thomas Suddes, a member of the editorial board, writes from Athens.
To reach Thomas Suddes: tsuddes@cleveland.com, 216-408-9474
Have something to say about this topic?
* Send a letter to the editor, which will be considered for print publication.
* Email general questions about our editorial board or comments or corrections on this opinion column to Elizabeth Sullivan, director of opinion, at esullivan@cleveland.com.
No Byline Policy
Editorial Guidelines
Corrections Policy
Source