To amend sections 3314.03, 3319.90, 3326.11, 3345.90, 3705.08, 3705.16, 3705.20, 3705.21, 3705.22, 4117.10, 4506.01, 4506.16, and 4507.01 and to enact sections 9.071, 3313.475, 3345.561, 3755.01, 3755.02, 3755.03, and 4113.90 of the Revised Code to enact the Privacy Protection Act regarding biological sex, access to certain facilities, names and pronouns, and certain government-issued documents.
HB798, the “Privacy Protection Act,” would create a set of statewide rules centered on biological sex definitions, facility access, and the use of names and pronouns in schools, public institutions, and certain government settings. The bill requires covered entities such as government buildings, correctional facilities, domestic violence shelters, and juvenile detention facilities to designate multi-occupancy restrooms, changing rooms, and overnight accommodations for exclusive use by either males or females, with limited exceptions for young children, people with disabilities, employees performing job duties, and emergencies. It also requires reasonable privacy measures and authorizes private lawsuits for declaratory and injunctive relief, with attorney fees available to prevailing plaintiffs.
The bill extends similar restrictions to K-12 schools, STEM schools, chartered nonpublic schools, educational service centers, and institutions of higher education. In schools, employees could not knowingly use names or pronouns inconsistent with a minor student’s sex without written parental permission, and employees and students would be protected from discipline or adverse employment action for declining to use pronouns or names inconsistent with sex. In higher education, the bill would require sex-segregated multi-occupancy facilities, offer same-sex housing options, and prohibit required mixed-sex overnight accommodations, while also creating a private cause of action for violations.
HB798 would also amend Ohio’s vital records laws to emphasize sex designations on birth, death, fetal death, and marriage records, and would restrict amendments to sex designations except by court order based on clear and convincing evidence. It would further require marriage and divorce abstracts to include the sex of both parties. In addition, the bill would add a separate chapter governing public places and workplaces, requiring proprietors to sex-segregate multi-occupancy facilities and empowering the attorney general to investigate complaints, issue warning letters for first violations, and seek civil penalties and injunctions for repeat violations.
The bill’s impact on state law would be broad. It would add new statutory definitions of biological sex and family facilities, alter school and higher-education compliance obligations, create new private rights of action and enforcement mechanisms, and override conflicting collective bargaining provisions for certain public-employee speech and pronoun-related protections. It would also affect the administration of driver’s licenses and identification records by tying sex-related terminology in those statutes to the state’s sex definition, while leaving the core commercial driver and licensing provisions otherwise intact.
Because the bill was only introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, there is no recorded vote or committee testimony in the provided materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears strongly aligned with supporters of sex-based privacy and facility segregation policies, while likely drawing opposition from advocates for transgender rights, civil liberties groups, school administrators, and institutions concerned about enforcement, privacy, and discrimination claims. The main points of contention are the bill’s treatment of transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals, the parental-consent and pronoun provisions in schools, and the creation of private lawsuits and attorney-fee awards for alleged violations.
HB798 would significantly revise Ohio law by adding new restrictions and enforcement mechanisms governing restrooms, changing rooms, overnight accommodations, and related privacy policies in government buildings, schools, higher education, and workplaces. It would also amend vital records statutes to make sex designations harder to change and to require sex information in certain marriage and death records, while directing state agencies to issue model guidance and, in some cases, empowering the attorney general or private plaintiffs to enforce compliance. The bill would affect schools, colleges, public employers, proprietors of public places and workplaces, vital records officials, and individuals seeking access to or accommodations in sex-designated facilities.
No committee votes or hearing testimony were provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s introduction. The bill’s structure and title suggest it is intended to advance a privacy-and-sex-segregation policy agenda, likely appealing to supporters who favor clear sex-based facility rules and limits on compelled pronoun use. At the same time, the breadth of the restrictions and the creation of private causes of action suggest it would likely face substantial opposition from civil rights advocates, LGBTQ+ groups, school and university stakeholders, and others concerned about discrimination, implementation burdens, and litigation risk.
The most likely points of contention are the bill’s treatment of transgender individuals in restrooms, changing rooms, housing, and overnight accommodations; the requirement that school and higher-education employees avoid names or pronouns inconsistent with a student’s sex absent parental permission; and the bill’s enforcement scheme, which includes private lawsuits, attorney fees, attorney general investigations, and civil penalties. Supporters would likely emphasize privacy, safety, and sex-based boundaries, while opponents would likely argue the bill is discriminatory, intrusive into personal identity and speech, and difficult to administer in schools, workplaces, and public facilities.