Gary Click’s latest bill would regulate speech and strip local control in Ohio

State Rep. Gary Click has introduced House Bill 693, a 55-page measure he calls the “Affirming Families First Act,” which he says would protect parents who reject their child’s gender identity. Co-sponsored by Rep. Josh Williams, the bill has drawn 14 additional cosponsors, all from the most conservative wing of the Ohio House Republican caucus.

But a review of the bill’s actual text reveals provisions that extend far beyond parental rights — into government-compelled speech for state employees, the nullification of at least 12 local conversion therapy bans, the removal of local school board authority, a taxpayer-funded private lawsuit mechanism, restrictions on child welfare investigations, and state-imposed mandates on what scientific conclusions contractors may acknowledge.

Here is what the bill would do.

The state would dictate what professionals can say

Section 3129.25 of HB 693 prohibits requiring state employees to “not affirm a minor child’s sex.” Section 3129.23 bars licensing boards from requiring practitioners to “refer to or treat a minor child in a manner that is inconsistent with the minor child’s sex.”

In practice, a licensed mental health professional who follows standard clinical protocol by using a patient’s preferred name could face loss of licensure. School counselors could be disciplined for the language they use in session notes. Social workers could face professional consequences for how they document a child’s statements in a report.

This is not a bill that protects speech. It compels it.

Columbus would override every local school board in Ohio

Sections 3129.14(4)–(5) prohibit any state employee from withholding information from parents about a child’s gender identity, or from encouraging a child to withhold such information. Section 3129.14(7) bars changing a child’s name or pronouns in educational records without parental consent.

Whatever one thinks of these policies on their merits, the bill eliminates the ability of every local school district in Ohio to set its own approach. A school board in Tiffin, a superintendent in Fremont, a principal anywhere in Seneca or Sandusky County — none would retain the authority to craft policies that reflect their own community’s values.

The party that has long argued for local control over education is now proposing to tell every school board in the state exactly what it must and must not do.

The bill creates a taxpayer-funded lawsuit machine

Sections 3129.35 and 3129.351 create a private right of action with attorney’s fees and a waiver of sovereign immunity. Any parent could sue a teacher, social worker, school counselor, or state contractor — and the state of Ohio itself — for alleged violations.

This is the same legal mechanism that drew bipartisan criticism in Texas’s SB 8 abortion law. Rather than the government enforcing its own statute through normal regulatory channels, the bill deputizes private citizens to file lawsuits against public employees. A school counselor who calls a student by a nickname could face litigation. A social worker who documents a child’s distress in a report could be hauled into court.

The sovereign immunity waiver means Ohio taxpayers are on the hook for damages and attorney’s fees — win or lose.

Contractors would be forced to certify ideological agreement

Section 3129.211 requires any entity contracting with the state for child welfare training to certify in writing that they will not teach that “gender transition for a minor is a sound evidence-based treatment for gender dysphoria or that gender transition reduces the risk of suicide in minors.”

Regardless of one’s position on pediatric gender medicine, this provision sets a precedent: the Ohio General Assembly would be legislating scientific conclusions by statute. The state would not merely be regulating a medical practice. It would be requiring contractors to certify agreement with a specific interpretation of medical evidence, on penalty of losing their contracts.

A university research hospital that contracts with the state for child welfare training would be forced to suppress its own peer-reviewed findings or lose its contract.

The bill would overturn local conversion therapy bans

Section 3129.211(3) requires state contractors to certify that they will not provide instruction “stating or suggesting that psychological and mental health treatment that affirms a child’s sex constitutes conversion therapy.”

In practice, this provision redefines conversion therapy by legislative fiat. Counseling aimed at steering a child away from a transgender identity and toward identification with their biological sex could no longer be described as conversion therapy under state-funded training programs — regardless of how major medical organizations classify it.

That distinction has immediate consequences across Ohio. At least 12 municipalities, including Cleveland, Akron, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cuyahoga County, have enacted local bans on conversion therapy. By reframing such counseling as something other than conversion therapy, HB 693 would effectively nullify those local bans.

“It is not conversion therapy to help children discover their identity and who they are biologically,” Click told WEWS.

Cuyahoga County responded directly. “In September 2025, Cuyahoga County became the first county in Ohio to enact a ban on conversion therapy, a hateful, misleading and dangerous practice discredited by over 28 major medical organizations,” county spokesperson Jennifer Ciaccia told WEWS. “We remain committed to upholding this policy and the protections it provides for children and families in our community.”

More than 28 major medical organizations — including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychological Association — have formally opposed conversion therapy, classifying it as ineffective and potentially harmful.

The bill appears to be motivated in part by Cuyahoga County’s prior use of Sexual Orientation Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE) screening in its child welfare system. Click told WEWS that the county’s policy “proactively screens children for their gender orientation without the child even volunteering it.” The county’s LGBTQ+ policy called “Affirm Me” ended in 2025, according to WEWS reporting.

Child welfare investigations would be restricted during crises

Section 3129.11 prohibits children services agencies from investigating a report of child abuse or neglect if the “sole basis” of the report involves affirming a child’s biological sex. Section 3129.12 bars the state from limiting a parent’s authority to make health care decisions in these contexts, even when a child is in inpatient treatment for self-harm.

The bill specifically addresses inpatient treatment scenarios in Section 3129.12(A)(1)–(2) and (B), meaning the sponsors anticipated this conflict and chose to restrict professional judgment even when a child is hospitalized in active crisis.

The bill blocks the state from tracking its own compliance

Section 3129.26 prohibits the state from maintaining any “system of surveillance or monitoring” of parents who affirm their child’s biological sex, and separately bars any database or monitoring of children based on gender identity.

The bill also prohibits surveying children about their gender identity or sexual orientation without written parental consent, effectively blocking school climate surveys, youth health assessments, and public health research that communities across Ohio use to serve their young people.

In effect, HB 693 creates sweeping new government mandates and then prohibits the government from collecting data about whether those mandates are being implemented equitably.

The legislative findings read like a manifesto

Section 3 of HB 693 contains extensive legislative “findings” that go beyond normal legislative language. The findings declare gender identity a “dubious metaphysical premise grounded in tendentious gender ideology,” characterize children’s gender-related distress as “dissociation from the child’s body,” and assert sweeping medical and scientific conclusions.

Legislative findings typically cite facts and established legal precedent. These read as an ideological declaration — the Ohio General Assembly attempting to settle contested medical and philosophical questions by statute.

A pattern, not an anomaly

HB 693 is consistent with Click’s established legislative record. While local schools in his district face significant financial pressures — in part due to his cosponsorship of HB 186, which is projected to cost Tiffin City Schools $1.2 million annually — Click has devoted his legislative energy to a 55-page bill focused on gender identity policy.

Click previously authored HB 339, which would have created vouchers for nonchartered religious schools, including the Baptist school operated by his own church, while explicitly blocking state oversight of curriculum, staffing, and accountability. That proposal failed three times and was vetoed by Gov. Mike DeWine, who cited fraud risks and the lack of accountability for unregulated schools receiving public funds.

Click also sponsored HB 68, now law, which banned gender-affirming medical care for minors and prohibited transgender athletes from competing on teams that align with their gender identity in middle school, high school, and college athletics.

HB 693 has 14 cosponsors. It does not yet have broad support within the Republican caucus.