Cracking the Facade: Analyzing Ohio's "Don't Say Gay" Legislation as Disguised Discrimination Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Journal of law and health Pub Date : 2025-01-01
Sydni L Porter
{"title":"Cracking the Facade: Analyzing Ohio's \"Don't Say Gay\" Legislation as Disguised Discrimination Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.","authors":"Sydni L Porter","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Ohio State Legislature is among the growing nationwide trend in attacking LGBTQ+ rights. Chief among these is Ohio House Bill 8, which claims to limit the types of content children encounter in schools. While the drafters cite this noble intent, the bill's actual impact further harms queer students and teachers, who already bear heavier mental health burdens due to such legislation and its societal implications. This type of legislation recently originated in Florida, where it was signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis in 2022 and garnered national media attention. As Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed a near-identical bill in January 2025, the outcomes observed in Florida inform the constitutional analyses for the Ohio constituency. As in Florida, Ohio's bill is left intentionally vague, banning \"gender ideology\" and \"sexual concepts\" in classrooms or constraining them to what is deemed age-appropriate without providing sufficient guidelines for what may be acceptable. The disparate impact of this legislation is rooted entirely in gender classifications, triggering intermediate scrutiny. The bill's ambiguity creates a chilling effect on students' First Amendment rights by restricting the ability to express gender non-conformity without the school disclosing such changes to their families, disregarding the child's safety, and limiting the type of instruction children may receive in the classroom. Consequently, this compels schools to treat LGBTQ+ students and age-appropriate content differently from their heteronormative counterparts, inherently relegating those with queer identities as second-class citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process clauses.</p>","PeriodicalId":73804,"journal":{"name":"Journal of law and health","volume":"38 2","pages":"267-303"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of law and health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Ohio State Legislature is among the growing nationwide trend in attacking LGBTQ+ rights. Chief among these is Ohio House Bill 8, which claims to limit the types of content children encounter in schools. While the drafters cite this noble intent, the bill's actual impact further harms queer students and teachers, who already bear heavier mental health burdens due to such legislation and its societal implications. This type of legislation recently originated in Florida, where it was signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis in 2022 and garnered national media attention. As Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed a near-identical bill in January 2025, the outcomes observed in Florida inform the constitutional analyses for the Ohio constituency. As in Florida, Ohio's bill is left intentionally vague, banning "gender ideology" and "sexual concepts" in classrooms or constraining them to what is deemed age-appropriate without providing sufficient guidelines for what may be acceptable. The disparate impact of this legislation is rooted entirely in gender classifications, triggering intermediate scrutiny. The bill's ambiguity creates a chilling effect on students' First Amendment rights by restricting the ability to express gender non-conformity without the school disclosing such changes to their families, disregarding the child's safety, and limiting the type of instruction children may receive in the classroom. Consequently, this compels schools to treat LGBTQ+ students and age-appropriate content differently from their heteronormative counterparts, inherently relegating those with queer identities as second-class citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process clauses.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Cannabis in the Clink: An Argument in Favor of Medical Marijuana for Disabled Inmates. Cracking the Facade: Analyzing Ohio's "Don't Say Gay" Legislation as Disguised Discrimination Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Rest in the Mourning: Navigating Assisted Suicide and Autonomy. The Ultra (And Nearly Ultra) Locality Rules Persist! Why Continue to Ignore Modern Medicine and Contort the Standard of Care? The Ninth Amendment: An Underutilized Protection for Reproductive Choice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1