To amend sections 2151.412, 2151.426, 3109.04, 3109.054, and 3129.01 and to enact sections 2151.032, 3129.10, 3129.11, 3129.12, 3129.13, 3129.14, 3129.15, 3129.21, 3129.211, 3129.22, 3129.23, 3129.24, 3129.25, 3129.26, 3129.30, 3129.301, 3129.35, 3129.351, and 4743.15 of the Revised Code to enact the Affirming Families First Act and protect the right to affirm a minor child's sex.
HB693, the “Affirming Families First Act,” would add a new set of child-welfare, custody, licensing, and state-policy provisions centered on a parent’s right to affirm a minor child’s sex. The bill defines “affirming a minor child’s sex” broadly to include using a child’s legal name and pronouns consistent with the child’s sex, seeking mental health services consistent with that sex, and declining consent to gender transition services. It then bars state and local entities from treating that conduct as abuse, neglect, an unsafe environment, or a basis for adverse action against parents, foster caregivers, adoptive parents, kinship caregivers, or state employees.
The bill also amends family-law and child-protection statutes to prohibit courts and agencies from requiring parents or custodians to facilitate social or medical interventions that are counter to affirming a child’s sex, and from considering a parent’s affirmation of a child’s sex as contrary to the child’s best interest in custody and parenting-time cases. It would prevent child services agencies from investigating reports when the sole basis is a parent’s affirmation of a child’s sex, restrict state-funded training and contracts that characterize such affirmation as abuse or neglect, and create private rights of action and state immunity waivers for violations. In addition, it would impose reporting and certification requirements on agencies and professional licensing bodies to ensure compliance.
In practical terms, the bill would significantly alter Ohio child welfare, domestic relations, and professional regulation law by creating explicit protections for parents and caregivers who do not support gender transition for minors. It would also constrain how public children services agencies, courts, and state-funded training programs can address gender identity-related issues, while exposing government actors and contractors to litigation if they violate the new provisions. The bill’s findings section frames these changes as protecting parental rights and preventing wrongful removals of children from fit parents.
Because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, there is no formal voting history to gauge legislative support. The overall tone of the bill text is strongly affirmative of parental authority and strongly critical of pediatric gender transition, and the available context does not show any recorded committee debate to moderate that framing. As a result, the apparent sentiment in the materials is one-sided and ideologically driven rather than the product of documented bipartisan negotiation.
The main points of contention likely concern whether the bill protects parental rights or instead interferes with child welfare practice, medical decision-making, and the ability of courts and agencies to respond to gender dysphoria or family conflict. Opponents would likely object to the bill’s restrictions on child-protection investigations, its limits on school, medical, and foster-care practices, and its private enforcement provisions. Supporters would likely emphasize parental rights, religious liberty, and opposition to state involvement in gender-transition-related decisions for minors.
HB693 would amend Ohio child welfare and custody statutes, including sections 2151.412, 2151.426, 3109.04, and 3109.054, and create a new Chapter 3129 framework governing state and local treatment of a minor child’s sex affirmation. It would bar agencies and courts from treating a parent’s affirmation of a child’s sex as abuse or neglect, limit investigations and custody consequences based on that conduct, restrict state-funded training and contracting practices, and create a private cause of action with a waiver of sovereign immunity for violations. The bill would therefore materially change the standards used by child services agencies, family courts, foster/adoption systems, and licensing bodies in cases involving gender identity and minors.
The bill text reflects strong support for parental authority and opposition to gender-transition-related interventions for minors, but the provided context contains no committee testimony or votes to show broader legislative sentiment. Because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded votes, there is no evidence of compromise or bipartisan support in the materials. The available record suggests a highly polarized issue, with the bill itself taking a clear pro-parental-rights, anti-transition position.
The central contention is whether affirming a minor child’s sex should be legally protected parental conduct or whether it can ever be relevant to abuse, neglect, or best-interest determinations. Critics would likely focus on the bill’s prohibition on child-welfare investigations, its restrictions on courts and agencies, and its limits on training, licensing, and foster-care decisions. Supporters would likely argue that the bill prevents wrongful state interference, protects parental rights, and stops agencies from compelling or encouraging gender transition for minors.