Ohio governor vetoes bill banning gender-affirming care for minors and transgender participation in girls’ sports

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine vetoed House Bill 68 on Friday, which would have banned gender-affirming care for minors and transgender athlete participation in girls and women’s sports in high school and college in the state.

Under the proposed bill, it would be illegal for medical health professionals to perform gender reassignment surgery on an individual under 18, prescribe a cross-sex hormone or puberty-blocking drug for a minor individual to assist with gender transition or engage in conduct that aids or abets in these practices. Additionally, the bill would require high school and collegiate sports teams to be designated as male, female or co-ed. House Bill 68 combines and edits the Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act and the Save Women’s Sports Act. 

DeWine’s veto message stated:

Ultimately, I believe this is about protecting human life. Many parents have told me that their child would be dead today if they had not received the treatment they received from an Ohio children’s hospital. I have also been told, by those that are now grown adults, that but for this care, they would have taken their lives when they were teenagers. What so many of these young people and their families have also told me is that nothing they have faced in life could ever prepare them for this extremely tough journey. Parents are making decisions about the most precious thing in their life, their child, and none of us should underestimate the gravity and the difficulty of those decisions.

Additionally, in response to the veto, Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson stated:

Ohio families don’t want politicians meddling in decisions that should be between parents, their kids and their doctors. Instead, parents, schools and doctors should all do everything they can to make all youth, including transgender youth, feel loved and accepted, and politicians should not be making it harder for them to do so. Thank you to Gov. DeWine for listening to the people of his state and making the right decision for young trans Ohioans.

Under Article II Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution, if the governor vetoes a bill, the bill gets sent back to the legislative house that it originated in. That house must vote to repass the bill by a three-fifths vote to send it to the other house to get another three-fifths vote to repass. If the bill gets a three-fifths vote to repass from both houses, the bill becomes law without the governor’s approval. That means this bill will be sent back to the Ohio House of Representatives, since that is where it was introduced.

Other states that have successfully passed bans on gender-affirming care for minors have faced litigation. A federal judge in Alabama declined to pause a challenge to an Alabama law that criminalized gender-affirming care for minors on Tuesday. Additionally, in October, a federal judge allowed Oklahoma’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors to take effect.

The post Ohio governor vetoes bill banning gender-affirming care for minors and transgender participation in girls’ sports appeared first on JURIST – News.

Burundi’s President Ndayishimiye hits out over gay rights and aid

See: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-67840417

European Court of Human Rights finds Poland failure to recognize same-sex couples

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled Tuesday that Poland’s failure to recognize same-sex couples violates its obligations to human rights.

Przybyszewska and Others v. Poland involved several same-sex couples who had all attempted to obtain formal recognition of their relationships from the civil registry office and were denied by Polish authorities. The court found that Poland’s failure to provide a legal framework for the recognition and protection of the couples’ unions created significant hardship. These hardships included the inability to regulate important aspects of their lives, such as property, taxation and the rights and duties of mutual assistance. The Court concluded that the denial of legal recognition for same-sex couples amounted to a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for the right to privacy. According to the court, Article 8 does not require Poland to allow same-sex couples to get married. Rather, the issue was “the absence in Polish law of any possibility of legal recognition and protection of the relationship of same-sex couples.” Poland ratified the convention in 1993.

The government of Poland argued that the lack of formal recognition under the Polish constitution was an “omission” that should be at the discretion of Polish legislators. They also argued that there had been no serious injury to the parties as a result of the lack of recognition.

The court responded to these arguments, stating:

It is important to note that the Court has consistently declined to endorse policies and decisions which embodied a predisposed bias on the part of a heterosexual majority against a homosexual minority. It has also held, under Article 14 of the Convention, that traditions, stereotypes and prevailing social attitudes in a particular country cannot, by themselves, be considered to amount to sufficient justification for a difference in treatment based on sexual orientation. The Court has also held that the allegedly negative, or even hostile, attitude on the part of the heterosexual majority cannot be set against the applicants’ interest in having their respective relationships adequately recognised and protected by law. It therefore rejects those arguments in the instant case.

In their opinion, the court noted a recent trend of anti-LGBTQIA+ rhetoric taking hold in some regions of Europe, including Poland. In 2019, Swidnik county passed a resolution declaring itself “free from LGBT ideology” and committed itself to preventing “the sexualization of Polish children” in schools through “homopropaganda.”  The resolution was supported by the conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party, but was withdrawn by the county earlier this year. The change was apparently made after funding for any Polish counties that supported the resolution was “put on hold” by the EU, as it violated non-discrimination law.

Poland’s Minister of Equality, Katarzyna Kotula, has announced that she will make the regulation of same-sex unions a “priority.” She went on to state that equality is guaranteed under Article 32 of the Polish Constitution.

The post European Court of Human Rights finds Poland failure to recognize same-sex couples violates right to privacy appeared first on JURIST – News.

Switzerland – new publication: Civil marriage for all – 40 years of activism

The Williams Institute’s Global LGBTQI+ Seed Grants Program is designed to encourage new empirical research focused on LGBTQI+ populations in the least developed, low- and middle-income countries 

Russia Supreme Court labels LGBTQ+ movement ‘extremist,’ drawing international condemnation

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk condemned on Thursday the Russian Supreme Court’s decision to outlaw the LGBTQ+ movement in the country and label proponents of the movement “extremists” under new legislation. The court’s decision is the most recent development in Russia’s ongoing crackdown against LGBTQ+ people within the country.

The Russian Supreme Court agreed, following a closed-door hearing, with the government’s request to declare the “international LGBT movement” as an extremist organization. In doing so, the court recognized that they were effectively banning LGBTQ+ activities within the country. This is because, in Russia, participating in extremist organizations can lead to a hefty prison sentence if charged and found guilty, with a maximum prison sentence of twelve years.

Since no specific organization was identified in the lawsuit, it is unclear how broadly Russian authorities will apply the court’s decision.

Several Russian human rights groups objected to the government’s request, but they were not present during the more than four-hour-long closed-door meeting at the court. The groups pushed back against the government’s claims that LGBTQ+ movement demonstrates signs of extremism, like incitement of social and religious hatred. The groups claimed that, if the court were to label the movement as extremist, it would violate several human rights and discriminate against those who identify with the LGBTQ+ community.

The Russian Supreme Court’s decision comes at a time where hostility against LGBTQ+ groups is at an all time high. In 2020, the Russian Constitution was amended to specify that marriage in Russia could only exist between a man and a woman, according to Article 1 of its Family Code.

This past year, Russia’s government has dealt further blows against the LGBTQ+ community, including a new law that prohibits gender reassignment and healthcare for transgender individuals. When announcing the passing of the legislation, the Russian Duma’s deputy chair Pyotr Tolstoy claimed that the aim of the law was to protect national interests and Russian citizens from “perversions.” Russia’s crackdown on its LGBTQ+ community has also included an expansion of the country’s “gay propaganda law,” which was originally passed in 2013. The most recent amendments from 2022 banned the “rejection of family values,” irrespective of age.

The court ordered that their decision to label LGBTQ+ organizations as “extremist” should come into effect immediately, despite growing international calls to reverse course.

The post Russia Supreme Court labels LGBTQ+ movement ‘extremist,’ drawing international condemnation appeared first on JURIST – News.

Interesting Article: Between morality and discrimination by public administration: the case of so-called ‘LGBT free zones’ in Poland

The latest issue of the Pécs Journal of International and European Law (Vol. 2023, nos. 1-2) includes:

• Marta Romańska, Agata Cebera, & Jakub Grzegorz Firlus, Between morality and discrimination by public administration: the case of so-called ‘LGBT free zones’ in Poland

Romania not ready for recognition of same-sex couples: prime minister.

Romanian society is not ready to set up a legal framework that recognises same-sex families in accordance with a recent ruling by the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights, said Romania’s Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu, while expressing hope that society would one day be ready.

Read more: https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/romania-not-ready-for-recognition-of-same-sex-couples-prime-minister/

Interesting new book: Banning ‘Conversion Therapy’ Legal and Policy Perspectives – Edited by Ilias Trispiotis and Craig Purshouse

More: https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/banning-conversion-therapy-9781509961153/

Italy: In Padova starts trial regarding the cancellation of birth certificates with two mothers

See: https://tg24.sky.it/cronaca/2023/11/14/figli-coppie-omogenitoriali-processo-padova

See: https://corrieredelveneto.corriere.it/notizie/padova/cronaca/23_novembre_14/mamme-arcobaleno-a-padova-via-alle-udienze-sugli-atti-di-nascita-impugnati-sit-in-fuori-al-tribunale-f95441ba-8689-47f4-bd91-842423d28xlk.shtml?refresh_ce-cp