In 2016, California banned state-funded travel to any state that discriminates against LBGTQ people. Ohio became the 18th state to be banned on Thursday.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta determined that the wording of the Ohio biennial budget, House Bill 110, which Gov. Mike DeWine enacted on July 1, amounted to such discrimination by allowing health officials and insurers to deny service to anyone on the basis of “moral, ethical or religious beliefs.”
“Whether it’s refusing a prescription for drugs that prevent the spread of HIV, refusing to provide gender-affirming care, or infringing on a woman’s right to choose, HB 110 unnecessarily puts the health of women on the line. Americans in danger, ”said Bonta, a Democrat, in a Sept. 24 Press release.
The “travel ban applies to state agencies, departments, boards, authorities, and commissions, including any agency, department, board, authority or commission of the University of California, the Council of regents of the University of California and the State of California. University ”, according to a fact sheet on the 1887 Assembly bill.
The law provides a number of exceptions, including for those traveling for California law enforcement or other litigation, grant-related travel, and for reasons of public health, welfare or safety.
By signing HB 110 into law, DeWine downplayed the impact of medical conscience language by stating, “People will not be discriminated against when it comes to medical care. We have a vibrant health care system in the state of Ohio. We have excellent doctors. We have excellent nurses. We have great systems.
During a recent visit to Cuyahoga Community College, DeWine added that “on the day I took office, we signed a number of executive orders prohibiting discrimination,” 3News reported. “So that’s not our goal. … California can do what California does. I can’t control this.
So is it much for nothing, as DeWine suggests, or should the people of Ohio be concerned that the HB 110 medical conscience provisions have now been ruled by another state as constituting discrimination? manifested towards LGBTQ? Our round table of the drafting committee takes part.
Thomas Suddes, columnist:
No, it’s not much for nothing, it’s a lot for something very important – the usual humiliation of the General Assembly towards the Ohio and the Ohioans. The legislation passed in Columbus on this subject is unreasonable.
Ted Diadiun, columnist:
You would think the Left Coast has enough trouble without trying to inflict its culture on the rest of us. So Ohio joined California’s 18-state blacklisted honor roll? It’s fine with me. It would be even better if the people of Ohio responded in the same way and crossed the “Golden State” off their travel list.
Eric Foster, columnist:
California’s gesture is largely symbolic; but the symbols have a meaning. Every elected official who supported HB 110 has, if not actively supported discrimination, at least created an environment in which discrimination against LGBTQ people can thrive. Such conduct must be condemned. Religious freedom does not include the freedom to discriminate. “You will love your neighbor as yourself. “
Lisa Garvin, Editorial Board Member:
Governor DeWine says there are laws to prevent discrimination, but he’s timid. Allowing health care providers to choose patients based on their personal beliefs is the very definition of discrimination and a glaring legal loophole. What happened to the oath that medical professionals took to do no harm? There is absolutely no moral justification for denying anyone health care.
Victor Ruiz, member of the editorial board:
The California government leads with values, which include protecting everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation. Conversely, it appears that Ohio values a person’s rights to discrimination rather than protecting all of its citizens. I guess the only other value that will make a difference here is money; maybe Governor DeWine and others in Ohio will take this seriously once it starts to hit our wallets.
Mary Cay Doherty, Editorial Board Member:
The medical conscience provision of HB 110 protects the religious freedom of Ohioans. It is not an anti-LGBTQ law. The rights of the First Amendment are sacred. Without them, democracy crumbles and totalitarianism follows. California’s opinion on the Ohio law is irrelevant. The Golden State has its own problems. In fact, I’d be more worried if Ohio passed a law California liked.
Elizabeth Sullivan, Opinion Director:
Protests that Ohio protects LGBTQ rights ring hollow when every attempt to add discrimination based on sexual orientation to state civil rights law has failed, even as Ohio employers want such a law to help them recruit. Allowing health care to be denied on the basis of sexual orientation is reprehensible and should not be upheld. California simply drew attention to this Ohio law.
Do you have something to say on this subject?
* Send a letter to an editor, which will be considered for a print publication.
* Email general questions about our Editorial board or comments on this Editorial Board Roundtable to Elizabeth Sullivan, Opinion Director, at [email protected].