6th Circuit Grants En Banc Rehearing in Challenge to School's Ban on Misgendering Fellow Students

In Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, (6th Cir., Nov. 1, 2024), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc vacated a decision issued in July by a 3-judge panel (see prior posting) and granted a rehearing en banc in a free speech challenge to a school district's anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies. At issue are policies that prohibit students from using pronouns that are inconsistent with another student’s gender identity if the use amounts to harassment. In a 2-1 decision in July, the panel rejected the challenge saying in part that "[T]he District’s position that students may communicate their belief that sex is immutable through means other than the use of nonpreferred pronouns, indicate that the District is not attempting to prohibit any viewpoints."

6th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in Transgender Bathroom Access Case

On Tuesday, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Doe No. 1 v. Bethel Local Board of Education, (6th Cir., Docket No. 23-3740). In the case, an Ohio federal district court (see prior posting) dismissed a wide-ranging group of challenges-- including due process, equal protection and free exercise challenges-- to a school board policy allowing students to use school bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity. Ohio Capital Journal reports on the oral arguments.

6th Circuit: Permit Requirement Did Not Substantially Burden Church

 In Dad's Place of Bryan, Ohio v. City of Bryan, Ohio, (6th Cir., Sept. 5, 2024), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to enter a preliminary injunction pending appeal to prevent the city from enforcing requirements that the church obtain a permit or variance before people may sleep on the first floor of the church building. Rejecting plaintiff's RLUIPA argument, the court said in part:

Dad's Place fails to show that it will likely succeed on establishing that the City's zoning laws substantially burden its religious exercise.... [T]he burdens alleged by Dad's Place are self-imposed.... The City provides a process by which entities in the commercial district can seek a variance or conditional use permit ("CUP") allowing them to operate as residential facilities.... Yet, despite being opened in 2018, Dad's Place has never applied to the City for a CUP or variance.... RLUIPA does not entitle Dad's Place to engage in unauthorized uses without ever seeking a permit or variance to do so....

Additionally, Dad's Place has not shown that it lacks adequate alternatives. For example, it can use a second floor as a residential facility or open a second facility. It asserts that such alternatives "transform the nature of the Church's ministry," but it gives no explanation as to why its ministry requires people to sleep on the ground floor of the building as opposed to the second floor, or why its ministry would be less effective if people slept in a different building that was properly zoned for residential use....

The court also rejected plaintiff's free exercise claim.

6th Circuit: Off-Duty Police Did Not Violate Dismissed Pastor's Free Exercise Rights

In Couzens v. City of Forest Park, Ohio, (6th Cir., Aug. 27, 2024), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a church's former pastor against off-duty city police officers who assisted the congregation in physically removing a pastor who had been dismissed from his position by the congregation. The court concluded that the off-duty officers acted reasonably in threatening to arrest the pastor if he did not leave the premises. It also concluded that the pastor's free exercise rights had not been infringed, saying in part:

Couzens contends that the Forest Park Defendants interfered with his free exercise of religion when the officers threatened to arrest him during a church service. He relies primarily on Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in N. Am., 344 U.S. 94 (1952)....

Kedroff’s church-autonomy doctrine, though, guarantees the independence of ecclesiastical bodies, not individuals.... And, unlike in Kedroff, the officers’ actions here did not reflect the state’s preference for one contender for a church’s control over another. Instead, the officers attempted to enforce what, from their perspective, appeared to be a settled matter: Couzens’s removal as IBC’s pastor....

Using Students' Preferred Pronouns Is Not Part of Teacher's Ordinary Job Duties

 In Geraghty v. Jackson Local School District Board of Education, (ND OH, Aug. 12, 2024) an Ohio federal district court ruled in part in favor of a middle-school English teacher's compelled speech and free exercise claims.  Plaintiff resigned under pressure when a school board required her against her religious beliefs to use the preferred names and pronouns of students who were socially transitioning genders. However, the court held that certain issues remain to be decided by a jury.

The court said in part:

For the school, using the students’ preferred names and pronouns carried the message that it supported its students....  And, most importantly, for the students, using their preferred names and pronouns carried the message that the speaker respected their gender identity.... 

So, the question is not whether using preferred names and pronouns was part of Geraghty’s ordinary job duties, but whether it was part of her ordinary job duties to convey (or refuse to convey) the message that those names and pronouns carried.  It was not.  Geraghty was a middle school English Language Arts teacher.... Her job was to teach English to the appropriate state standards....  It was not her job “to teach anything with regard to LGBTQ issues.”....

Under the Pickering-Connick framework, the Court asks two questions: First, was the speech at issue “a matter of public concern?”...  And second, was Geraghty’s interest in remaining silent greater than Defendants’ interest in “promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees?”...

... [W]hen Defendants compelled Geraghty to use the students’ preferred names and pronouns, they forced her to “wade[] into a matter of public concern.” ... The final question is whether Geraghty’s “interest in” remaining silent on a “matter[] of public concern” outweighs “the interest of [Defendants], as [Geraghty’s] employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.”...

Defendants assert that they have a compelling interest that “teachers teach and do not use their position of trust and authority to impose their religious beliefs.”...

As the diametrically opposed opinions of the parties’ experts demonstrate, “the use of gender-specific titles and pronouns has produced a passionate political and social debate” in this country....  Whether use of student’s preferred names and pronouns creates a safe and supportive environment for students is a factual question a jury should decide after hearing the parties’ expert testimony. 

Accordingly, while the Court concludes that Geraghty’s compelled speech was not pursuant to her ordinary job duties, it denies the parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment as to the Pickering balancing test....

Focusing on plaintiff's free exercise claim, the court said in part:

[W]hile the District’s practice might look neutral and generally applicable, it was ill defined and provided the District a discretionary “mechanism for individualized exemptions.”... Accordingly, it must survive “the most rigorous of scrutiny.”  

Ohio Court Rejects Challenge to Ban on Treatment of Minors for Gender Dysphoria

In Moe v. Yost, (OH Com. Pl., Aug. 6, 2024), an Ohio state trial court held that Ohio's ban on surgical or hormonal treatment of minors for gender dysphoria does not violate the equal protection or due process clause of the 14th Amendment, or the Ohio constitution's single subject rule, due course of law clause or its Health Care Freedom Amendment. The court said in part:

25. The State of Ohio has a legitimate government interest in protecting the health and safety of its citizens.  

26. The Court finds that upon weighing the evidence received at trial, the Health Care Ban is rationally related to this interest. It is limited to minors. Moreover, the medical care banned carries with it undeniable risk and permanent outcomes.  Indeed, countries once confident in the administration of gender affirming care to minors are now reversing their position as a result of the significant inconsistencies in results and potential side effects of the care.  Thus, there can be no doubt that the Health Care Ban is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.

The court thus vacated the temporary restraining order previously entered in the case. 

The ACLU announced that it would file an immediate appeal of the decision.

6th Circuit: School District's Ban on Students Calling Others by Non-Preferred Pronouns Does Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, (6th Cir., July 29, 2024), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision rejected free speech challenges to a school district's anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies that prohibit students from using pronouns that are inconsistent with another student’s gender identity if the use amounts to harassment. The majority said in part:

... Parent A-D’s children intend to communicate a message by using non-preferred pronouns to refer to their classmates.... [T]he single thing on which the parties agree is that pronouns matter.  That is true for transgender students in the District, who experience the use of preferred pronouns as a vital part of affirming their existence and experience the use of non-preferred pronouns as dehumanizing, degrading, and humiliating.  It is also true for Parent A-D’s children, whose parents aver that using pronouns inconsistent with a person’s biological sex at birth contradicts their “deeply held beliefs” about the immutability of sex.  The intentional use of preferred or non-preferred pronouns therefore represents speech protected by the First Amendment....

Students who do not want to use their transgender classmates’ preferred pronouns may permissibly use no pronouns at all, and refer to their classmates using first names.... Parents A-D, to be sure, have made clear that this option is not their preference because their children “don’t want to avoid using pronouns ... they want to use biologically correct pronouns.”... But using first names is remarkably similar to a proposed “compromise” we praised in Meriwether—the plaintiff’s proposal to “call on [the transgender student in his class] using [that student’s] last name alone,” rather than any honorifics....

Outside instructional time, moreover, students may elect to not refer to their transgender classmates at all.  This choice to not speak mirrors the generally accepted accommodation for students morally opposed to reciting the Pledge of Allegiance....

At bottom, PDE has failed to make a clear showing that the District’s prohibition on the intentional use of non-preferred pronouns unconstitutionally compels speech. ...

... [T]he District’s position that students may communicate their belief that sex is immutable through means other than the use of nonpreferred pronouns, indicate that the District is not attempting to prohibit any viewpoints....

Judge Batchelder dissented, saying in part:

As I understand it, the plaintiffs’ position—based on their scientific (biology, physiology, and genetics) and religious beliefs—is that biological gender is immutable, people are either male or female, and there is no such thing as “gender transition”; that is a made-up thing, imaginary or make believe, and a public school cannot force their children to pretend it is a real thing.  Agree or disagree, but that is their position.   

In that light, the speech at issue here concerns the existence of gender transition, not just a debate about gender-identity issues or misgendering.  The Olentangy Local School District’s view—contrary to Parents Defending Education’s—is that there is such a thing as gender transition; it is real, worthy of recognition and, in fact, worthy of protection in the public schools.  Why else would the District require preferred pronouns, prohibit biological pronouns, or press the odd compromise of no pronouns at all?  Therefore, the governmental authority (the District) has taken a clear position (viewpoint) in which all of its captive subjects (students) must affirm the existence of gender transition (either through words or silence), regardless of their own view.  This is a viewpoint-based regulation of speech....

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

6 More States Fend Off Enforcement of Title IX Transgender Discrimination Rules

Four days after a Louisiana federal district court enjoined the Department of Education from enforcing its new sex-discrimination rules under Title IX against Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho (see prior posting), a Kentucky federal district court issued an opinion barring enforcement against Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia which were plaintiffs in the case. DOE's new rules interpret the Title IX ban on sex discrimination to include discrimination against transgender students and faculty by institutions receiving federal financial assistance. Intervenors in the Kentucky case are an organization of Christian educators and a cisgender high school girl who objects to a transgender female who was on her Middle School track team. In State of Tennessee v. Cardona, (ED KY, June 17, 2024), the court in a 93-page opinion said in part:

The Department’s new definition of “discrimination on the basis of sex” wreaks havoc on Title IX and produces results that Congress could not have intended....

For purposes of Title IX, “sex” is unambiguous.  Therefore, there is no “implicit delegation from Congress” to the Department to change or expand its meaning.... But even if the word were ambiguous, there would be significant reason for pause before assuming that Congress “had intended such an implicit  delegation.”...  Education is one of the most important functions of state and local governments and is an area where states “historically have been sovereign.” ...  Accordingly, it is unlikely that Congress would have intended to delegate the authority to deviate from Title IX’s original purpose “in so cryptic a fashion.”...

The major questions doctrine assumes that Congress speaks clearly when it delegates to an agency the authority to make “decisions of vast economic and political significance.”...

The court also concluded that the new rules violate teachers' free speech rights, saying in part:

... [P]rivate and public institutions, as well as the students, faculty, and staff therein, will be forced to convey a particular message that may contradict moral or religious values....  For example, the Final Rule’s definition of harassment will likely compel “students and teachers to use ‘preferred’ rather than accurate pronouns.” ...

It is unclear how the Government’s articulated position can be seen as anything less than a tacit endorsement of a content-based heckler’s veto So long as the offended individuals complain with sufficient vigor, the refusal to abide by preferred pronouns can be deemed harassment and exposes a recipient of Federal funds to liability under Title IX....

The court also focused on parental rights and privacy rights, saying in part:

Although the Final Rule gestures at retaining a certain role for parents, it does not provide that parental opposition to their child’s selective gender identity requires schools to exempt that student from Title IX’s new mandate.  To the contrary, it implies that Title IX could supersede parental preferences about a child’s treatment depending on the case.

... [D]espite society’s enduring recognition of biological differences between the sexes, as well as an individual’s basic right to bodily privacy, the Final Rule mandates that schools permit biological men into women’s intimate spaces, and women into men’s, within the educational environment based entirely on a person’s subjective gender identity.  This result is not only impossible to square with Title IX but with the broader guarantee of education protection for all students.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Ohio AG Sues to Prevent Reform Rabbinical College from Dismantling Its Valuable Library Collection

Ohio's Attorney General filed suit this week in an Ohio trial court seeking a temporary restraining order and an injunction to prevent Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati from selling off any of its valuable library collection of Judaica which the college was exploring the possibility of doing in order to deal with a crippling financial deficit.  The complaint (full text) in State of Ohio ex rel. Yost v. Hebrew Union College- Jewish Institute of Religion, (OH Com. Pl., filed 6/3/2024) alleges in part that the college is violating Ohio law by soliciting contributions from donors without disclosing that it is exploring the sale of parts of the Klau Library collection. It also alleges breach of fiduciary duty in administering charitable assets according to the donors' intent and alleges in part:

By the acts, omissions, and imminent acts identified in this Complaint, Defendant has breached and/or is breaching its fiduciary duties to collect, preserve, and share the Cincinnati Library collection for the charitable benefit of the public, including the Greater Cincinnati community.

Attorney General Dave Yost issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. According to the Cincinnati Enquirer:

Following Yost's move Tuesday, HUC spokeswoman Patricia Keim said the college has made no plans to sell books or close the library. "We have retained a rare books expert to assess our holdings," she said. "We remain committed to responsible management of the Klau Library and its critical role in the study of Judaism, Jewish history, and Jewish civilization."

Longer Bus Routes for Parochial School Students Upheld

In Swiech v. Board of Education of the Sylvania City School District, (OH Com. Pl., March 19, 2024), an Ohio trial court dismissed a suit brought by parents of students attending a Catholic school. Plaintiffs complained that bus transportation furnished by the District to and from non-public schools involved much longer transportation times than bus service for public school students. While public school students were taken directly to school, non-public students were taken to a central transfer point and then transferred to other busses to get to their schools.  Among the court's holdings was that no Equal Protection violation was involved because the District only needed a rational basis for the differential treatment. Conservation of limited financial resources meets that test.  The court also rejected plaintiffs' Free Exercise challenge

Plaintiffs have offered no evidence of any coercive effects on their religious practice: there is no evidence that the transportation plan has compelled Plaintiffs to do anything forbidden by their religion or that it has caused them to refrain from doing something required by their religion. Plaintiffs have also not offered any evidence that the transportation plan has compelled them to affirm or disavow a belief forbidden or required by their religion.

Ohio Court Issues TRO Against Bill Barring Gender-Affirming Care for Minors and Transgender Women on Sports Teams

 In Moe v. Yost, (OH Com. Pl., April 16, 2024), an Ohio state trial court issued a 14-day temporary restraining order preventing the state from enforcing House Bill 68 which enacted the Saving Ohio Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act barring gender transition services for minors and the Save Women's Sports Act that barred transgender women from competing on women's sports teams. (See prior posting.) The bill was set to take effect on April 24. The court concluded that the bill likely violates the provision in the Ohio Constitution that states: "No bill shall contain more than one subject..." The ACLU says that it "will continue the litigation to ultimately obtain a permanent injunction on behalf of Ohio families whose children are at risk of losing critical life-saving medical care." National Review reports on the decision.

Interference With Contractual Relationship Created by Jewish Marriage Contract Is Not Actionable

In S.E. v. Edelstein, (OH App., March 25, 2024), an Ohio state appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a suit for intentional interference with a contractual relationship brought by an Orthodox Jewish wife (Kimberly) against her father-in-law (Max) who disapproved of her marriage to his son (Elliott). The court held that the suit essentially sought damages for alienation of affections and breach of promise to marry which were barred as causes of action by Ohio Revised Code 2305.29. The court said in part:

In the complaint, it was alleged that Max had intentionally interfered with the ketubah, the supposed "contract" at issue in this case, by engaging in a continuous "campaign to undermine" Kimberly and Eliott's contractual relationship (i.e., their marriage) for nearly 20 years.  The complaint alleged that this included Max being "emotionally abusive" towards Kimberly, as well as Max making "negative and derogatory statements" about Kimberly.  This, according to the complaint, included Max criticizing Kimberly's "status as a convert to Judaism" and by frequently stating that Kimberly's and Eliott's children "were not Jewish."  The complaint also alleged that Max, "with the intent to destroy the contractual relationship between" Kimberly and Eliott, routinely disparaged Kimberly to "persuade" Eliott to "terminate his contractual relationship with [her]."...

[T]he complaint raises amatory claims of a breach of a promise to marry and alienation of affections against Max couched in terms of an intentional interference with a contractual relationship ..., loss of consortium... , loss of parental consortium ..., intentional infliction of emotional distress ...,, and malice.....  As stated previously, pursuant to R.C. 2305.29, neither Max, nor any other person, could be held liable in civil damages.... for any breach of a promise to marry or alienation of affection.  This holds true despite those claims being pled within the complaint in other, generally more suitable terms....   

Just as a rose is a rose by any other name, a non-actionable claim does not become actionable simply by masquerading as one that is....

Ohio Legislature Overrides Governor's Veto of Bill on Transgender Health Care and Sports Participation

The Ohio Senate yesterday voted 24-8 to override Governor Mike DeWine's veto of HB 68, the Saving Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act. The Ohio House of Representatives two weeks ago voted 65-28 to override. The bill, which will now become law, bars physicians from performing gender reassignment surgery or prescribing cross-sex hormones or puberty blockers to minors. It also prohibits transgender women from participating on women's athletic teams in schools that participate in interscholastic athletics and in public and private colleges. (See prior posting.) WCMH News reports on the Senate's vote and says that a court challenge to the legislation is expected.

Church Sues City Over Operation of Ministry for Homeless

Suit was filed yesterday in an Ohio federal district court seeking to enjoin the city of Bryan, Ohio from enforcing its zoning ordinances in an attempt to prevent a Christian church that ministers to the homeless from remaining open 24-hours a day. The complaint (full text) in Dad's Place of Bryan, Ohio v. City of Bryan, (ND OH, filed 1/22/2024), contends that the city has begun "a coordinated effort to exclude ministries from operating downtown." The city has charged the church's pastor with 18 criminal counts for allowing homeless to reside on the property for an extended amount of time in violation of zoning rules. The Church in its complaint contends that the city has violated the 1st and 14th Amendments, RLUIPA, the Fair Housing Act and the Ohio Constitution. First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

UPDATE: Friendly Atheist has additional background on the city's concerns regarding the church's activities.

Ohio Adopting Administrative Rules on Gender Transition Treatments

 As previously reported, last month Ohio Governor Mike DeWine vetoed a bill which prohibited physicians from performing gender reassignment surgery or prescribing cross-sex hormones or puberty blockers to minors, and prohibited transgender women from participating on women's athletic teams in schools that participate in interscholastic athletics and in public and private colleges. However, in his veto message he urged the Ohio Department of Health to adopt rules to carry out part of what the vetoed legislation provided-- a ban on gender transition surgeries for minors and rules to prevent pop-up clinics for treating gender dysphoria. On January 5, the Department of Health published a draft of rules (full text) to carry out the Governor's proposal.  The Health Department's Release describes the rules:

The emergency rules filed today:

• Prohibit health care facilities, including ambulatory surgical facilities, and hospitals from performing gender surgeries on minors.

The draft rules proposed for public comment:

• Obligate the Department of Health to report deidentified data to the General Assembly and the public every six months.
• Set forth quality standards for those hospitals and ambulatory surgical facilities that wish to treat gender-related conditions.

On January 5, Governor DeWine signed an Executive Order (full text) allowing the Department of Health to adopt on an emergency basis without the usual comment procedures its proposed rules banning gender transition surgeries on minors and setting quality standards for facilities that treat gender dysphoria.  Under Ohio law, the emergency rules will be effective for 120 days. (It should be noted that there is a slight discrepancy in the rule numbers set out in the Health Department's Release and those set forth in the Governor's Executive Order.)

Ohio Governor Vetoes Ban on Gender Affirming Treatments for Minors and Women's Sports Provisions: Proposes Administrative Alternatives

 Ohio Governor Mike DeWine today vetoed HB 68 which prohibited physicians from performing gender reassignment surgery or prescribing cross-sex hormones or puberty blockers to minors, and prohibited transgender women from participating on women's athletic teams in schools that participate in interscholastic athletics and in public and private colleges. (Full text of Governor's Veto Message, his prepared Statement at a News Conference, and a video of his lengthy News Conference on the veto.) Focusing only on the ban on treatment of minors, the Governor said in part:

Were I to sign Substitute House Bill 68 or were Substitute House Bill 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...

I have listened to the concerns the Legislature ... and agree that action is necessary regarding a number of issues raised.

I believe we can address a number of goals in Substitute House Bill 68 by administrative rules that will have a better chance of surviving judicial review and being adopted....

I adamantly agree with the General Assembly that no surgery of this kind should ever be performed on those under the age of 18. I am directing our agencies to draft rules to ban this practice in Ohio.

I share with the legislature their concerns that there is no comprehensive data regarding persons who receive this care, nor independent analysis of any such data. I am today directing our agencies to immediately draft rules to require reporting to the relevant agencies and to report this data to the General Assembly and the public every six months. We will do this not only when patients are minors, but also when the patients are adults.

I also share with the legislature’s concerns about clinics that may pop up and try to sell patients inadequate or even ideological treatments. This is a concern shared by people I spoke with who had both positive experiences and negative experiences with their own treatments....

Therefore, I am directing our agencies to draft rules that establish restrictions that prevent pop-up clinics or fly-by-night operations and provide important protections for Ohio children and their families and for adults.

Ohio Legislature Passes Bill on Transgender Treatment of Minors and Transgender Participation on Sports Teams

Yesterday, the Ohio legislature gave final approval to House Bill 68 (full text) which enacts the Saving Ohio Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act and the Save Women's Sports Act. The bill prohibits physicians from performing gender reassignment surgery or prescribing cross-sex hormones or puberty blockers to minors. It requires mental health professionals to obtain parental consent before diagnosing or treating a minor for a gender-related condition. The bill also prohibits transgender women from participating on women's athletic teams in schools that participate in interscholastic athletics and in public and private colleges. The bill additionally prohibits courts from denying or limiting parental rights because of a parent's decision to raise a child according to his or her biological sex or because the parent declines to consent to the child receiving gender transition services or counseling. The bill now goes to Governor Mike DeWine for his signature. The Cincinnati Enquirer, reporting on the bill, says it is unclear whether the governor will sign the legislation.

UPDATE: On Dec. 29, Governor DeWine vetoed the bill, but offered administrative alternatives. (See subsequent posting for details.)

Appeals Court Upholds Denial of Unemployment Benefits To Health Care Worker Who Was Denied Religious Exemption From Vaccine Mandate

In Cyriaque v. Director- Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (OH App., Nov. 22, 2023), an Ohio state appellate court upheld the denial of unemployment benefits to a clinical trainer at a community health center who was denied a religious exemption from a federal Covid vaccine mandate.  Her employment was terminated when she continued to refuse the vaccine.  In upholding the denial of benefits, the appeals court said in part:

It was, of course, the hearing officer’s province to assess the credibility of Cyriaque’s assertion that the exemption request was based upon her sincere religious opposition to the COVID-19 vaccines. In coming to this decisive determination, the hearing officer was free to believe all, some, or none of Cyriaque’s testimony. As noted, Cyriaque’s exemption statement submitted to Community Health did not assert that her religious opposition to the COVID-19 vaccines was based upon the use of aborted fetal cells in the development of the vaccines. In contrast, Cyriaque’s hearing testimony and other evidence exclusively focused upon the use of aborted fetal cells being used in the development of the vaccines as the basis for the requested exemption. This contrast between Cyriaque’s statement provided to Community Health and her hearing testimony provided support for the hearing officer’s finding that Cyriaque’s exemption request was not premised upon her sincere religious opposition to the COVID-19 vaccines. Given this, we cannot conclude the commission’s decision was unlawful because it violated Cyriaque’s rights under the Free Exercise Clause, that the decision was unreasonable, or that the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Anti-Abortion Legislators in Ohio Will Seek to Remove Jurisdiction of Courts to Interpret New Constitutional Amendment

 As previously reported, abortion opponents in Ohio have taken several approaches in their unsuccessful attempt to prevent the adoption of a reproductive rights amendment to the Ohio Constitution. First they unsuccessfully attempted to amend the state constitution to increase the percentage of voters needed to adopt a constitutional amendment.  Then the state Ballot board adopted a description of the proposed amendment that was seen as painting the amendment in a less favorable light.  Nevertheless, earlier this week voters adopted the amendment by a vote of 56.6% to 43.4%.  Several legislators now say they will attempt to remove jurisdiction from Ohio courts to interpret the new amendment.  In a November 9 press release from the state legislature's Republican Newsroom, Republican legislators said in part:

“Foreign billionaires don't get to make Ohio laws,” said Jennifer Gross (R-West Chester), pointing to millions from billionaires outside America that helped fund Issue 1. Gross added, “This is foreign election interference, and it will not stand.”...

Representative Beth Lear (R-Galena) stated, “No amendment can overturn the God given rights with which we were born.”

To prevent mischief by pro-abortion courts with Issue 1, Ohio legislators will consider removing jurisdiction from the judiciary over this ambiguous ballot initiative. The Ohio legislature alone will consider what, if any, modifications to make to existing laws based on public hearings and input from legal experts on both sides.

Ohioans Vote On Reproductive Rights Amendment

In Ohio today, voters are casting ballots on State Issue 1 that, if approved will add the following to the Ohio Constitution:

Article I, Section 22. The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety

A. Every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on:
1. contraception;
2. fertility treatment;
3. continuing one’s own pregnancy;
4. miscarriage care; and
5. abortion.

B. The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either:

1. An individual's voluntary exercise of this right or

2. A person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right,

unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the individual's health in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care.

However, abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability. But in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient’s treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.

C. As used in this Section:

1. “Fetal viability” means “the point in a pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient's treating physician, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus with reasonable measures. This is determined on a case-by-case basis.”

2. “State” includes any governmental entity and any political subdivision.

D. This Section is self-executing.

Ballotpedia has additional information on the proposed amendment. Live election results will be available here.

UPDATE: With 84% of the precincts reporting, the measure has passed 55.6% to 44.4%.