Opposing HB 68: Defending Parental Rights and the Rule of law

As the Ohio Supreme Court deliberates on Moe v. Yost, I am writing to express my continued and firm opposition to the enforcement of HB 68. The current defense of this law by the State rests on a dangerous legal premise: that the General Assembly possesses the authority to unilaterally redefine "healthcare" to exclude established, evidence-based medical treatments. This is an overreach that undermines the rule of law by placing legislative preference above the expertise of major medical associations and the fundamental rights of Ohio families. HB 68 violates substantive due process by stripping parents of their long-recognized right to make critical medical decisions for their children—a right that even Governor DeWine acknowledged in his initial veto. By interjecting the state into the doctor-patient relationship, the legislature has created a precedent that threatens the medical privacy and bodily autonomy of all Ohioans, regardless of the specific treatment in question.  I urge you to support the restoration of parental rights in Ohio and to work toward repealing the provisions of HB 68 that mandate state-controlled healthcare decisions.