Ohio House Judiciary Committee - 3-18-2026

Chairman Thomas? Here. Vice Chair Swearingen? Here. Ranking Member Sindenburg? Here. Representative Piccolo Antonio? Here. Representative Callender checked in. Representative Matthews? Here. Representative Mohamed? Here. Representative Barriosso? Here. Representative Volsleger? Here. Representative Plummer? Here. Representative Seward? Here. Representative Timms? Here. Representative Williams? Here. We have a quorum present and we'll proceed as a full

Yes, Chair. I would like to amend House Bill number 203 with amendment AM underscore 136 underscore 1776-1.

Yes, this is a substitute bill. It worked with the joint sponsors that designates the portion of an action school zone that is more likely to have increased pedestrian traffic as a school adjacent sector. It specifies that a school adjacent sector is the portion of the street with an active school zone that's either a crosswalk abutting the school property that's used by pedestrians or it's surrounded by school property on both sides. So if it's a street that's bisecting part of the school district, And so it therefore narrows the bill's application of possible double find for specific traffic offenses so that they are where students would likely be walking or inside of the schools. There's also a few technical updates to work with the House Bill 54 and 96 that we passed with the budget this year.

Mr. Chairman, I motion to favorably report House Bill 203 to the Committee on Rules and Reference and recommend this passage.

Chairman Thomas?

Vice Chair Swearingen?

Ranking Member Sendenberg?

Representative Nicola Antonio?

Representative Callender? Representative Matthews?

Representative Muhammad?

Representative Odioso?

Representative Volsler?

Representative Plummer?

Representative Stewart?

Representative Timms?

Representative Williams?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to favorably report House Bill 252 to the Committee on Rules and Reference and recommend its passage.

Representative Callender? Representative Matthews?

Representative Mohamed?

Representative Vodagoso?

Representative Olsweiger?

Representative Plummer?

Representative Stewart?

Representative Tim? Representative Williams?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to favorably report House Bill number 372 to the Committee on Rules and Reference and recommend its passage.

Chairman Thomas?

Vice Chair Swearingen?

Ranking Member Sendenberg?

Representative Piccolo-Antonio?

Representative Callender? Representative Matthews?

Representative Muhammad?

Representative Arioso?

Representative Wolfsiger?

Representative Plummer?

Representative Stewart?

Representative Timms?

Representative Williams?

Thank you so much. Good morning. Chair Thomas, Vice Chair Swearengin, Ranking Member Sindenburg, and members of the Ohio House Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide opponent testimony on House Bill 249. My name is Andrew Levitt, but people know me around the world by my stage name, Nina West. I'm a lifelong Ohioan. I was raised in Greentown, Ohio, in Representative Olshlager's district, which is in Stark County, which I also believe is in your home district, Chair Thomas. When I was growing up, my family was deeply involved in Republican politics. My grandfather is Robert E. Levitt, served for many years as chair of the Stark County Republican Party, and has also served in the House of Representatives here in Ohio. Very proud of that legacy. Growing up I attended Republican Party events with my family I remember meeting Bob Dole George H Bush and even the younger Mike DeWine And I went on to the 1992 Republican National Convention with my grandfather Because of that upbringing, I grew up hearing a lot about what I was told were conservative values. Individual freedoms and liberties, personal responsibility, limited government, and the idea that people have the ability to be free and live their lives without unnecessary interference from the state. I heard about these traditional Republican values a lot because, as the only boy in my generation of the Levit family, it was clear to me that I was being raised to follow in my grandfather's footsteps. Of course, there was just one problem as I saw it. I was gay. Coming to terms with that in the conservative community was quite difficult and complicated. I loved my family and the community that raised me, but I was also worried that if people truly knew who I was, I would no longer belong or fit in. But then I had the opportunity to go to college and meet my people, and that experience changed my life right in Granville, Ohio, in a small community. That opportunity opened me up to the world of drag, and drag gave me the chance to find artistic expression and provided me community, and it saved my life, among many others who can say the same experience. What started off as a one-off performance in 2001 became my career that I have today. As my career as the U.N. West in 2014, I was able to purchase my home through performance and drag, right here in Columbus, Ohio. I've chosen to live in Ohio because I believe in Ohio values. I could live anywhere. I live here. My character, Nina West, also in 2018, had the ability to compete on RuPaul's Drag Race, which opened the door for me around the world. It allowed me to step into rooms that I never would have imagined I could step in and profess my love for my great state of Ohio. Today, I find myself wanting to share that love more importantly because this community has done so much to raise so much money for LGBTQIA plus people, but also the community at large. Drag entertainers are known for charity work. The West family alone, many who are represented here today, have raised over $3 million for charities, including organizations like the Ronald McDonald House and Nationwide Children's Hospital, among many others. Your own constituents have benefited from the work of drag artists. That is fact. So why is Andrew Levitt here and not Nina West? Because drag, to me, is celebratory. And today is a somber occasion. House Bill 249 uses vague language and cultural discomfort to try to get rid of artistic, cultural, and political expression that some people simply don't like. One of those reasons I find so much sadness in this exercise is because I have to come here today and justify my existence, my career, and my livelihood. I have to stand here, like many other LGBT Ohioans who have poured our hearts and souls into the work that we do into this state, to have Ohio turn its back on me and many others. So the values that I was raised with so intentionally, and values like individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, and the idea that people should be able to live free of their lives without unnecessary interference from the state, Those are the parts of my upbringing that I look back on fondly and that have shaped who I am today. But a bill like this does exactly the opposite. Not only does it trample on Ohio values that I was raised with, it would also deny me the chance to help families like me and people like me and children who, like me as a child, were just different. Whether they're members of the LGBTQIA plus community, whether they just love performance. I don't know. That's exciting. Whether members of the LGBT community, whether they just love performance, or whether they're just different, it can truly be inspirational for people to see somebody doing something that is an art form that is both affirming inclusive and celebratory celebratory Anything that this bill suggests otherwise is just not true Please like me reaffirm to the next generation of Ohioans that we should not tell them to hide their light. Please remind them that Ohio is a state that is supported by the ideals of joy, hope, love, and individual freedom. Because not only are those the values of Ohio, I really hate to inform you, but those are the values of DREHEC. These are the values of the things that we hold true and near and dear to what we do. I've had this great opportunity to be myself because I'm an Ohioan. I ask that you let the next generation to grow into that as well. Please vote no on House Bill 249. Thank you for the chance to testify. I can now answer your questions.

Representative Williams with a question.

Well, through the chair to the representative, I believe that the language is so vague that it does not allow an opportunity to clearly define what an adult cabaret space is versus what a performance space may be.

Yes, thank you. So I actually have the bill here in front of me, and it's very specific on what an adult cabaret is. And that it's a performance that is obscene or harmful to juveniles, which is found in 2907.01, the definition. It's clearly defined, it's been defined for a very long time, not only in Ohio, but in the United States. And it says if you engage in obscene conduct in your performance, that you can't do it in the presence of a minor. It doesn't say you can't even do it in the presence of adults. There's even an exception you can do it in a private residence or anywhere where children are not present. So that means the only thing it is prohibiting is obscene performances in the presence of minors. And the definition of obscene performances, it says things like depicting sexual activity, masturbation, sexual excitement, nudity in a way that represents human beings as mere objects of sexual appetite. Why do you think drag performers should be able to engage in simulated masturbation, simulated sexual activity, in the presence of a minor? Because that's the only thing that the bill bans.

Paula?

Well, if it's obscene or harmful to juveniles, then it would, again, under Ohio law, be considered already legal. Otherwise, what is decided to be appropriate for children should be determined by their parents, and I don't believe that should be determined by politicians. So, again, and then it goes on the definition of based of what is obscene. Me standing in full drag to you could be seen as obscene, and I disagree with that notion. But thank you for the opportunity to reply.

Our next witness is Kimberly Burrows.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions for the witness?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for coming to testify. I want to turn it to another. When we say something is unconstitutional, I take that one a little bit serious, so I'll come back to that, especially since I taught constitutional law for five years and I know the bill is constitutional. But earlier in your testimony, you talked about how there was going to be a large number of resources that were going to be needed. We were going to burn through funds. We were going to crowd Ohio jails. Well, that would only be the case if we had a very large number of adults that were trying to engage in obscene performances in the presence of a minor. Because that's the only criminal conduct that's here. And obscenity is not vague. The definition has been used for decades and upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. Right now we have, since you're a former prosecutor, we have statutes like pandering obscenity to a minor, where you can't provide obscene conduct. So I can't tape an obscene performance and then show the recording to a minor. And all I'm saying is it's also unlawful for the minor to be present during a performance. So we already have a statute that says I can't show the minor a recording of that obscene performance. This statute simply says you can't perform that obscene performance with a minor being present. Tell me how that is different or vague or somehow different from a statute that's already on the books and has been enforced and has been prosecuted for decades in the state of Ohio.

Thank you, Chair.

So I'll give you an example. Let's say you went to a bar where there was a drag performer. Only adults were present, and the performer engaged in obscene conduct. Full nudity, simulated masturbation, simulated sex acts. Let's say that occurred.

Let's say that occurred in the state of Ohio, and one of the attendees recorded it and went home and showed it to a minor child, that's unlawful under pandering obscenity to a juvenile in the state of Ohio. Why is it something different if the juvenile was actually present and we say the performer shouldn't do that in the presence of a child? Tell me the distinction between the two.

are absolutely right. It is routine in the courts to challenge prosecutions with motions to dismiss and motions to suppress The argument today is this bill will open the floodgates to those procedures bog down the courts and be very expensive for Ohio cities municipalities counties. Second, as the representative may know, in the First Amendment context, vagueness challenges have a special place in that body of law. Because there is an overbreadth doctrine in the First Amendment. Vagueness is especially concerning because if a bill is not very clear, it will chill speech, meaning even protected speech that is not illegal, people will not engage in it out of fear of prosecution. For the representative's last question, the last point in the question, to be frank, I believe the question is targeting a specific set of facts that A is already unlawful under Ohio law. So the question should be, what does this bill add? If you can already prosecute that offense that you describe under pandering obscenity, and you can already prosecute obscenity presented to juveniles under the disseminating matters harmful to a juvenile statute, what does this add? It adds nothing but statutory language enabling the prosecution and persecution of transgender Ohioans and LGBTQ drag performers engaging in expressive protective conduct. That is why this committee should reject this bill. All of these, this parade of horribles, Ohioans are already protected under the other sex crimes in Ohio law. This doesn't add anything other than a vehicle for persecution. One more follow-up. Thank you,

Again, earlier, the example that I gave you, the recording of that performance shown to a child would be unlawful. The recording of a performance that's harmed for the juvenile shown to a child is unlawful. Currently in Ohio law, there is nothing making it unlawful for a child to be present at an obscene performance. Nothing.

So I'll ask you the same question I asked last witness. Why do you think drag performers should be permitted to engage in obscene performances in the presence of juveniles?

Ranking member Sendenberg with a question.

Sir, I don't know. I'm not yet a parent, but I'm excited to become one soon. Follow up?

So the prior exchange you had with Representative Williams, you discussed the constitutionality.

is that a lot of these have actually been, a lot of these in other states, these bans, have been ruled unconstitutional, not constitutional. Can you add anything to that as far as what your research has shown?

Representative Pickle Antonio with a question.

what are the better ways that we could spend our time and resources? Thank you for the question. One of the most heartbreaking aspects of working as a prosecuting attorney is encountering abuse-neglect dependency cases. And I can tell you with no doubts that if this body were to increase the funding for local county departments of Job and Family Services or youth and children, now to fully investigate those cases, to expend the appropriate amount of resources to get to the bottom of things, to support families, to provide after-school care, all of the resources needed to have a functioning family, that would be a much better use of this body's time. State funding for school lunches, universal free school lunches, all of these things, those would make kids safer. Those would solve the day-to-day problems facing Ohioans. This bill would not.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you so much for being here today. I just have a couple questions as it relates to the bill based on your interpretation, given your area of practice. In your opinion, can you explain or describe what an adult cabaret is?

Follow-up, Chair?

We absolutely are, Representative. And in addition to creating a legal quagmire, it's just not the way to govern. Again, I have always understood one of the core values in this country, no matter your political persuasion, is parents just get to parent their kids. I think that that argument has been used in context on both sides of the aisle. We should not be stifling that freedom to make decisions about how your kids grow up with these kinds of bills. Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman. I want to color in the definition of adult cabaret. You said it could be restaurants, bars, et cetera, something that you may frequent this afternoon. There's additional language in the code defining what adult cabaret is. It's those places plus persons who appear in a state of semi-nudity or semi-nudity and live performances that are characterized by the exposure of specified anatomical areas or specified sexual activities. and it occurs regularly. So are you aware that that language is in the code and would you care to redefine your definition of what an adult cabaret is in your testimony?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's difficult to predict all of the different scenarios in which this statute might be used to criminalize entertainment or expressive conduct.

I appreciate your clarification. That's what the existing law says. That's not what this bill says. My one follow-up question is whether you're aware that the Sixth Circuit upheld a similar bill out of Tennessee and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up cert. So that's binding precedent on our jurisdiction.

Any other questions for the witness?

Any other questions for the witness? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony

Our next witness is Josh Meek. Okay Thank you Thank you Oh I missed Okay Sorry Sorry

Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you, Chair. I knew I was going to get this one where somehow I was stopping a performance or a theatrical performance So I knew I was going to get that one. But I don't like when people misrepresent the legislation I introduced. Have you read lines 320 through 328 in the bill?

I'll read it to you. Division B1 of this section shall not be construed to prohibit or restrict a bona fide film, theatrical, or other artistic endeavor or performance that is not obscene or not harmful to juveniles. shall not be construed to prohibit an adult cabaret performance in a private residence. It literally says it will not stop theatrical performances so long as they are not obscene. So the first part of your statement is misrepresenting what the legislation does. But I wouldn't expect anything less. The second part is about this expression, right? It starts to go into the performances and obscenity and harmful to juveniles.

So I'm going to ask you to support that statement, that a performer simulating sex acts or simulating masturbation in Ohio in the presence of a minor, show me the criminal statute that would apply. Please cite it.

A performance is only criminalized under the bill if it is deemed obscene or harmful to juveniles. Saying the law does not apply to performances that are not obscene or harmful to juveniles doesn't really create an exception.

Follow-up. Yes, thank you. So the exact statute that you pointed to, dissemination of material harmful to juveniles, the material is the important part you're leaving out. This is about a taped performance. This is about photographs, magazines, recordings. That's why you see the language you sell, not sale. Deliver, furnish, which means provide. Disseminate, which means show. Then it actually says provide, exhibit, rent, or present. It's about material being given to a minor.

So you're citing a statute that doesn't apply to a performer in real life in front of a juvenile.

So I appreciate you pointing to the statute that clearly shows that there's a gap, Where, again, like I stated earlier, taping the performance, you couldn't show it to a juvenile in the state of Ohio. Attending the performance, juveniles can be present currently. And then earlier you said there should be a parental consent provision. You believe that parents can consent to their children being exposed to obscenity Because that what pornography is defined in Ohio So is it your group position that parents should be able to give consent to watch pornography with their minor children Is that your group's position?

Ranking Member Sinber with a question. Yes, thank you, Chair. Thank you for your testimony and your time here today, Josh. Can you give us some context? You mentioned in your comments some of the history of drag performances going back to the Shakespeare days. Can you give us more context about the history and how in mainstream media, mainstream performance, drag has been used in the past?

Thank you. Good follow-up. I'll represent our vice chair Sparengen with a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You mentioned historical facts, performances. You know, I think the sponsors have done a great job of focusing this bill on kids. So we're not talking about World War II performances. We're not talking about Shakespeare. None of that. This comes down to protecting kids. I think that's very, very clear in this bill. And there's numerous instances where we say kids should not participate in our society. Numerous instances. Bars, strip clubs, smoking, cannabis. The list goes on and on and on. So this debate is really about kids. And your burden right now is to show this committee why kids should be able to attend these performances. So in your opinion, why is it good that kids attend these performances?

Follow up. Hitting on the duplicative point that you've tried to make, if this is a duplicative bill, then what's the issue?

Representative Mohammed with a question. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Josh. Good to see you again. And thank you for your service to the House prior as well. I did want to ask you in your testimony one thing really stood out to me, which is the statement that you made, quote, these performances were not treated as criminal conduct, they were treated as culture. That's a really powerful statement. Could you, I think with the previous speaker as well, she mentioned how we're wasting a lot of resources, you know, criminalizing individual behavior. Could you elaborate more on how we got to this point, unfortunately?

Follow-up? Thank you, Chair. I did want to also go back to some of the questioning that Williams was asking you regarding the exception in the bill, which stated that if a performance is artistic in value, then there's an exception in the bill for that. The concern that I have is it's sort of like circular reasoning, because ultimately it's going to be up to prosecutors and law enforcement to make that determination. So the idea that you're not going to be prosecuted because it's artistic in value ultimately would be determined by not individuals, not parents, but prosecutors and law enforcement officers. Could you elaborate briefly on that as well?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair Thomas, Vice Chair Swearengen, Ranking Member Sandenberg, and the members of the committee. My name is Corey Williams. I a 47 man who lived in Columbus Ohio for over 35 years However today I coming to you as my official capacity as Anissa Love who a professional artist and Miss Gay Ohio 2026 I've been a drag entertainer within the state of Ohio for over 26 years, and I've watched our amazing state grow with love, acceptance for all, up until the past few years. I'm no stranger to adversity, but I've based my career within this art form to uplift, inspire, and educate. So today, let me attempt to do those things. The majority of the opponents to HB 249 within this room have had their hands in helping to raise millions of dollars for charity organizations, such as the Community Shelter Board, Mid-Ohio Food Collective, and other organizations throughout the state of Ohio. I personally work with the Kaleidoscope Youth Center to give every one of our LGBTQIA plus youth and their families resources to become their best selves their best selves through counseling, leadership opportunities, and after-school programming. Kaleidoscope was founded in 1994, and I'm proud to say that I was one of those youth that walked through the doors over 30 years ago. So what you see standing before you is years of dedication, hard work, determination, five pairs of compression tights, a roll of duct tape, a corset, five-inch high-density foam for my hips, high-density foam, false breasts, a layer of makeup, hairspray, false eyelashes, and the love of this historic art. In April 2022, an alt-right Nazi organization showed up to a drag brunch that I was the host of at Land Grant Brewery. They were armed with weapons, hate, and masks to hide their identity in all the attempt to frighten and intimidate us. We were not scared then, we are not scared now, but we answered the call as we have for generations with love and the commitment to protect our rights to free speech and to gather. That brunch is a fundraiser for the LGBTQIA plus youth of our state, and that purpose was just to raise $5,000 on that moment. Because we stood firm and showed that we would not be swayed, we ended up raising $65,000 on that particular brunch. Love will always win over hate. I have the distinct privilege as Miss Gay Ohio to travel across this state to spread our mission statement, which is to provide resources, opportunities, and funding to the community at large without prejudice. If you have any questions about why we create the art we do, who we are as humans, and how we can actually help you, please don't hesitate to ask. Most of us in this room are willing to sit and have an open conversation with you. You'll find that we're not very different. We're brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, and siblings that wake up every morning just trying to be the best versions of ourselves each day, while trying to carve out time for joy and spaces to come together, not just as a community, but as one human race. Fear is not a way to make a judgment. Hebrews 11.1 states, faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. I have faith in each and every one of you to look inward to the better parts of your angels and know that this decision is not a light one. It goes beyond party lines. Our economy, our livelihoods, and our lives are on the line with your decision. So I implore you to vote against HB 249. Thank you for your time, and I'm here for your questions.

Ranking Member Sandberg with a question. Thank you, Chair, and thanks for your time and testimony today, and congratulations on the award, Miss Gay, Ohio, 2026. Thank you so much. I do not take it lightly because it's times like this. So you've been performing for 26 years, you said. Yes. What are your typical performances? With drag performances within the state of Ohio, we in this room, I'll speak to us, are a when it comes to creating joy and production performance spaces that span every genre of music and every typical performance. I mean, we dance, we lip sync. What I said earlier, I'm covered head to toe, more so than anyone else probably in this room. There's nothing sexy about what I'm doing right now. I'm being 100% honest. And if it is, that's a personal thing. But I can tell you now, it's not sexy. Follow-up? No follow-up. Thank you.

Our next witness is Stephen Dunn.

You've reached the end of the three minutes. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your service to the Ohio Department of Public Health. Are there any questions for the witness?

Are you still employed by the state? I sure am. Okay, very good.

you are clothed from head to toes and nothing obscene about it. The fear I have is that some prosecutor could say that that's still harmful to juveniles and then a violation of this new proposed statute. What would you say to that? Thank you. Through the chair to the representative. I am very concerned about that. There's been a lot of inference that drag is obscene or overtly sexual, and that could be described with cheerleaders or, like we talked earlier about, Sabrina Carpenter, Beyonce, any of the artists that come through this town. Most of the times that I have done events where children are present, there has been an explicit understanding of what the rules are, how we should dress, any music that we perform should not contain foul language. So there's already an understanding between the organizers of the event, the venue, as well as the performer. So the fact that anybody could just make a judgment call means that any of us could be walking down the street and somebody say, oh, that's offensive to me. They should be prosecuted under this law. That's where the slippery slope happens.

Any other questions for the witness?

Can you point in the bill where it says that? The bill is so broad that it is up to prosecutors and law enforcement to decide where that obscenity lies. And that's kind of the issue that we're coming across.

But when I read your testimony, I saw another one of the things that a lot of groups that oppose this, the key words that you like to use. You said I'm trying to ban drag. So where in the bill does it actually do that? Tell me where it says that drag is inherently offensive or drag is inherently obscene or drag is inherently harmful to juveniles and therefore we're banning drag. Show me in the legislation, because I wrote the words that we see here today. Show me where it says that in the bill instead of it just being a talking point that groups like to use to drum up opposition.

I will actually say you've actually said it multiple times in today's hearing that drag, you've asked people to explain to you why drag performers can't be overtly sexual or offensive. So by your own admission, you have said that that is what the standard is. So you are making the judgment call.

He made a statement directly towards you. Last one.

Representative Mohamed, did you have a question?

what we trying to do is I know I can speak for my friend Nina West Virginia West the West family Our performances are all about spreading love and spreading support for people The fear is if we do a number that says something that somebody is there and thinks oh, well, that's offensive to me, all of a sudden we're facing possible legal action. If we wear an outfit where there may be a midriff, is that over the line? I also look at, I took my nephew to a OSU football game and what the cheerleaders were wearing and some of the movements they were doing, I was like, oh, gee, this is kind of weird. So can somebody make a determination in that space as well? Look at all of the dancers and performers that happen over Ohio. The bigger question is, when something like this is enacted, will it stop people from coming into the state of Ohio to perform like a Beyonce, like a Sabrina Carpenter, like a Tory dance company? So it really is a slippery slope of interpretation, and that's where the problem lies.

Absolutely. Thank you for the question. Absolutely. When we do shows in bars and for adult spaces, those are 21 and over. So unless you are 21 and over, you are not allowed to be in that space. If we are doing performances like a drag show reading or a show that is intended for families or children, there are expectations from the venue, from the people that are organizing, as well as those of us who are performing. A lot of us will talk to each other and say, hey, what are you planning to wear? Sometimes we've been like, I wouldn't wear that because you don't want anybody to feel uncomfortable. Our number one goal is to make sure that people feel comfortable in the spaces that we are performing at.

Sure.

And remember, the key is obscenity. There already is a law on the book that goes over that. Multiple people have testified on that. No one is saying that that is what we're trying to do. What we're saying is the law is too vague and opens up a lot of questionable prosecutory and judgments from people that might not be qualified to make those judgments.

That is for the parents to make that determination, not for legislators.

Thank you so much.

Absolutely. Thank you for having me. Chair Thomas, respected committee members, my name is Dara Atkison. I'm the executive director of TransOhio, Ohio's oldest statewide trans equity organization, dedicated to protecting and advancing the rights of trans, non-binary, intersex, and gender non-conforming Ohio. We serve thousands of people every year and know firsthand how much harm a law like this will do, not just to the minority community it intends to target, but to the vast amount of community members all across Ohio. Trans people do not exist in a vacuum hidden away from society, and laws intended to do harm to us end up harming many. By equating performing in drag or simply existing in public as a trans person existing in public with obscenity, HB 249 perpetuates hateful stereotypes, endangering the safety and well-being of numerous people across our great state. So what counts exactly as performance? That is one of the core issues of this bill. And how does that definition of what is obscene being determined? Could a broad overreach of obscenity statutes be used to target trans people living their lives? Absolutely. Could cis people who don't dress according to perceived gender norms also be targeted? Also absolutely. Drag performers who are dressed modestly using prosthetics that people aren't expecting? Sure. And also, who is going to make those determinations? Yes, as many have testified previously, it is up to law enforcement professionals. But we are adding additional vagueness to the law here. Opinions of individual law enforcement officers needing to find the truth of how the authors of this bill have not yet considered the sweepingly vague ways in which HB 249 could be applied. If I were to bring up here an NFL cheerleader next to a fully clothed drag queen and a cis-passing trans individual, only one of these people is intended to be criminalized under HB 249. But the actual visual representation of all three could be strikingly similar and left to individual interpretations of who would in fact be obscene. All three could be found obscene. All three could be subject to either prosecution or at the very least arrest and harassment. HB 249 creates this vast subjective gray area of potential First Amendment violations opening the state up to countless litigation. The bill is about subjectively judging the appearance of others, and if you think this bill is going to be used to cause harm to someone you know, people in your district, I urge you to take another glance at what this bill would allow for. I have a quick visual to show what our potential obscenity grounds are. All of the people on this board are performers. All of them perform in non-cabaret venues. All of them have at least at one point in time performed in front of all age crowds. So I ask this committee to take a look at them. Who is obscene? I'm sure some of you feel confident in knowing which people on this board are obscene. Four of them were the ones that are being intended to be targeted by this bill. But I urge you to take a look at the pamphlets I'll hand out later. Basically, it's not who you think it is. There are cis people who also perform in drag that aligns with their sex assigned at birth. There are any number of people who don't conform to what you think of as gender norms that we are leaving open. And so labeling drag as inherently obscene would allow for subjective doling out of obscenity enforcement based on individual law enforcement's opinions. We don need additional coverage We have existing functional obscenity laws please do what best for your districts and vote against it And if you would like to see the answers I have printouts

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To Chairman Thomas, Vice Chair Swearingen, Ranking Member Sinnenberg, and members of the House Judiciary Committee. Can you hear me now? Okay. To Chairman Thomas, Vice Chair Swearingen, Ranking Member Sinnenberg, and members of the House Judiciary Committee, thank you for this opportunity to provide opponent testimony on House Bill 249. My name is Gary Daniels, legislative director for the ACLU of Ohio. I'm going to go off script here, given how the hearing has gone so far. In my written testimony there, you will see plenty of reference to the problems overall that are repeated with House Bill 249, with indecency and obscenity laws. When I previously testified on this bill last session, some members were incredulous that anybody would have a problem with indecency or obscenity laws the way they are written, despite decades of scholarship about the exact problems with these laws, the words of U.S. Supreme Court justices, the words of judges, both conservative and liberal across the political spectrum, conferences, law review articles about this exact problem that are, again, repeated here in House Bill 249. The overall problems with that type of language when you look at the actual law, You know, when it talks about describing or representing sexual conduct or sexual excitement, when it talks about what's patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for juveniles, when it obscenity law, when it talks about judging with reference to ordinary adults, these types of terms and phrases that are very subjective and open to interpretation. And it's exactly why these types of laws have been used over the decades to target movies, TV shows, websites, video games, records, and recorded music and everything else. Now, with the remainder of my testimony, I want to address a couple of things that have been brought up here in committee. Show where the current law is with regard to this particular so-called problem. And other witnesses have said it quite clearly. 2907.31, disseminating matter harmful to juveniles. But you look at the statute itself, and it doesn't apply to just matter. It explicitly says performance as well throughout the law here that we're talking about. So I'm not exactly sure where the confusion lies. The same is true for the pandering obscenity parts of Ohio law, where it specifically references performance, I think demonstrating why this law is unnecessary. With regard to how these lawsuits against these laws continue to lose in court, that's not true. Four days ago, the Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction from the district court in Montana striking down that law. In May 2025, the same was true for a law out of Florida. Yes, there is a Tennessee case where a lawsuit against this type of law was dismissed, but that was based on standing grounds, not on the merits of the law itself. In fact when the district court looked at the merits it issued an injunction against the law itself So you certainly got lawsuits out there and there one other lawsuit I aware of with regard to what state is it Texas, which is also a case that's currently ping-ponging through the courts right now based on standing issues, not the merits of the law itself. So, you know, that's just to correct the record here based on some claims that were made that I find to be, you know, at the very least inaccurate.

Representative Timms with a question. Thank you, Chair, and thank you so much for coming to testify today. I know there was a lot mentioned about the Sixth Circuit and what happened with that case and how they defined it. There's also a decision by the Ninth Circuit just a few days ago about another House bill in Montana. Can you talk a little bit about the conflicting decisions between both courts and what that means for, I guess, the veracity of this bill?

Thank you.

Through the Charity Representative, I'm sorry I do not have that level of information, including what the ACLU might have said in regard to those particular cases. But one thing is crystal clear, as I said. if this is what concerns the supporters of this bill or this committee, this overall issue, you have two laws, at least two laws, that explicitly target this type of behavior that people have been mentioning as a concern. Disseminating matter harmful to juveniles, 2907.31, and pandering obscenity, 2907.32, both of which, again, specifically, explicitly reference performances.

Vice Chair Swaringen with a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One question, again, I think we've seen in numerous instances where the government has an interest in protecting those under the age of 18. Again smoking cannabis alcohol strip clubs requiring kids to go to school or else they truant I mean there numerous laws where the government steps in Does the ACLU agree that in certain instances and I not even saying this specifically but in certain instances, the government can protect those under the age of 18?

Follow up. I understand you pointing out those statutes. I think Rep. Williams mentioned them earlier. Again, I think, you know, if it's duplicative, it cuts both ways, right? If it's already as it is now, then what's the concern? if this law is duplicative, and I understand it could be a waste of time, resources, et cetera. I get that.

Any other questions for the witness?

Through the chair to Ranking Member Sindenburg, I certainly can't speak on behalf of other people. I can only answer that question anecdotally, but I know people, I'm sure other people in this room know people, perhaps it's them themselves, that either won't move to Ohio or they move out of Ohio because of what they see. This one bill alone, I'm sure for some people it would do it. Other people, I think it's a collection of things, spokes in the same wheel, for instance, and you can look bigger and better beyond that. I mean, the fact that in Ohio, it is still entirely legal to discriminate under state law against LGBT people in public accommodations and in housing and employment, that right there is a very big issue, real issue for an awful lot of people. So in a vacuum, you've got this bill, but you've got an awful lot of other similar stuff going on that does push some people out of Ohio and cause them not to come here. And I think that's probably the intention of some supporters of bills like these.

Welcome to committee. Please proceed when you're ready. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Chair Thomas, Vice Chair Seringen, ranking member Sindenburg, and esteemed members of the House Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today. My name is Leo Rodriguez, and I am here as a concerned citizen to urge you in the strongest possible terms to oppose House Bill 249. While framed around protecting our children, this bill deliberately uses vague language to criminalize art expression, art forms that are celebrated across cultures like drag and recognized as a legitimate protected speech in the Constitution of the United States. The language in this bill is dangerous by categorizing gender expressive performances as inherently adult or obscene for minors. this bill encodes discrimination into Ohio law. It sends a clear message that people whose gender expression falls outside the convention are a threat to our children. That is not a value statement. That is prejudice. And when legislature writes prejudice into law, it doesn't protect children. It teaches them that some of their neighbors, their family members, and perhaps even they themselves, are something to be feared and hidden away. Ohio has, like many have mentioned, already robust obscenity laws. Prosecutors have every tool that they need on the encouraged statute to prosecute such performances. This bill solves a problem that does not exist. But what it does is creates a framework that can and will be weaponized against our LGBTQ community. All of it at taxpayer expense. What our children actually need are fully funded public schools. They need access to libraries where books are not pulled from shelves because of political pressure. They need teachers who are empowered to educate and not censored by ideology. They need a state that invests in their future rather than manufacturing a culture war that battles to distract from the real work of governance. Ohio is already in a battle for talent, for young people, for families who have choices about where to make their lives. Bails and legislation like HB 241 are exactly the kind of legislation that informs those decisions. Ohio needs people who will come and want to build a life here and this bill prevents from that. Our growth as a state is depending on people choosing Ohio as a place of opportunity. Legislation that signals Ohio is hostile to people who are different does the opposite of welcoming. Members of this committee I urge you do not move this bill forward. your constituents send you here to make their lives better to fund their schools to grow their economy to build a state where everyone can thrive I urge you to not move this bill forward We can choose to be better than this Please vote no on this bill Thank you. I can answer any questions if there are.

Thank you, Chair Thomas and Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you for your time and testimony today. you are, back to the question I asked the last witness, you are exactly who we need more of in this state. You're young. I assume you're maybe not born in Ohio and already moved here.

I mean, our state's on life support right now, economic, developmentally. and we don't even know if our economic development agency, Jobs Ohio, is legitimate or not. In any event, my question to you is, do you have evidence of people that you know that you deal with or that you know that either have moved from Ohio or plan to move on to Ohio because of the environment that bills like this one are creating here?

No follow-up.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Chairman and Committee, for the opportunity to be here today. Good morning. My name is Erica Pearsall. I am a lifelong Ohio resident. I'm a proud graduate of two of our fine public institutions. And most of all, I'm a mom. So that's what I'm here to talk a little bit about today. And I'm a lover of art in all of its forms. So I want to highlight a few things. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the unconstitutionality of it, because I think those that are far more equipped than I have addressed that. But I want to talk about drag as art and not as a crime. You heard earlier today that in the time of William Shakespeare, when he wrote and produced what are arguably the best plays that have ever been written, that the productions had women played by men. Additionally, cross-dressing is central to the plot of his play, The Merchant of Venice. But I'm going to take us back even a little bit further than William Shakespeare, back to the great Roman Empire. So back in the time of Rome, the Roman historian Plutarch, in his Life of Sulla, noted that Roman council celebrated military victories with a drag queen, Metrobius, that was the key entertainer going back as far as 81 B.C. So prior to William Shakespeare prior to Mozart who wrote his opera The Marriage of Figaro was another artistic work where cross was absolutely central to its plot There are of course many modern examples of movies and TV shows where drag and cross are central to the themes and the plot points that are explored by the writers and actors. Examples would include Tootsie, Hairspray, Mrs. Doubtfire by the late, great Robin Williams. The Birdcage, again starring Robin Williams and Nathan Lane, and Gene Hackman, of all things, dressing in drag. Booz and Buddies, M.A.S.H., many of us that are my age and older probably recall Clinger. Some of the young folks in here may not. Some Like It Hot, going back a little further, Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon. And one of my favorites, of course, Tu Wong Fu, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar, Patrick Swayze, Wesley Snipes, and John Leguizamo. All of these are examples of financially successful and critically acclaimed movies and shows starring beloved actors performing for our entertainment. These shows remain artistically relevant today, and many are widely available on streaming services, broadcast television, and cable. I mentioned that I'm a mom. When my daughter was young, I took her to Pride because I wanted to open her eyes to a world beyond our little very, I'm a cis-het woman, as they would say. And what it taught her was some makeup trips. She actually ended up wanting to work when she graduated at Ulta Beauty. She's yet to master some of the style in this room, But she continues to aim for that. Drag taught her compassion, it taught her joy, and it taught her love. So in addition to all of these things that I talked about, there are Broadway shows, Hairspray in Chicago, that have been mentioned. Another one of my favorites is La Caja Fall. And actually, Kelsey Grammer, who is a noted Republican, was up for a Tony for his performance in that Broadway revival. If this bill becomes law, you limit the type of shows that can come through Ohio. because I think a strict reading of it prohibits shows like Hairspray, shows like La Caja Falls, shows like Chicago, which, to the point that was made here earlier, can impact the economics of this state. We want to encourage people to come here. We want to encourage shows to come here. We want to encourage people to go see those shows, spend their money at our restaurants, in our clubs. And my concern is the bill, because of how it is written, would absolutely discourage that. Drag has been around for 2,000 years.

Ranking member Sindenburg has a question. Yes, thank you, Chair Thomas. Thank you for being here and for your testimony. If Rep. Williams were, he's not here. If he was here, he would probably try to get into a debate about, does the bill actually say this or this, or does there's an exception for the, But can you explain how, in reality, you know, that, like you mentioned, the potential economic prospects, the shows that may not come here. Can you explain that, you know, in reality, how that works out when the very fact that play, you know, performance productions won't want to come to Ohio because they don't want to risk it, even if technically there's this exception. but we don't know until that gets probably litigated whether that exception applies and just the very fact that if a bill like this were to pass, why, in your experience, shows wouldn't come to Ohio?

So in reality, a theater producer who's not a, you know, constitutional law expert who's taught constitutional law for five years, is not going to, is not going to, no, is not going to, even if under that person's opinion, Representative Williams' opinion, the bill is constitutional, but that producer who doesn't, they're not going to risk disobeying the law because these performances and performers are law-abiding and they want to follow the law. So to confirm, they're not going to risk that and even mess with it if a bill like this is passed. That's vague. That's how I see this bill. I think it would be concerning if I'm a theater company. And I want to note that I do theater occasionally, community theater. I'm not a professional by any stretch of the imagination, but there are concerns right now, based on this bill, whether certain shows can be performed in Ohio if this bill passes, by our own theater company saying, should I apply for the rights to La Cage because I'm concerned it could run afoul of this. So that is happening, and I do know that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony again, and thank you for being here. You briefly touched on the sort of economic impact to our state. Can you talk about just the – I think in previous testimony, several folks talked about some of the money that has been raised for some of the good causes. So can you generally elaborate on just the economic impact and the impact that it will have in terms of people moving out of our state and us being a free market economy that if you don't want to attend a director, you don't have to. But you shouldn't be able to chill speech. So could you just elaborate more on that?

Vice Chair Swearingen with a question.

Any other questions for the witness? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

Our next witness is Joelle Henneman. Welcome to committee. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions for the witness?

Well, as I've heard the conversation in the bill, it says that it is harmful to juveniles or obscene. and I have watched the national politics of the last year, and I have been here in the Statehouse many times over the last several years, and I have heard debate about removing books from shelves. I've heard debate about which bathroom I should use, and when I've heard politicians describe people like me, we are called harmful and obscene. That's the message I've received. I've gotten hate mail. I've had tires flattened. I've had incredibly horrible things posted about me on social media that have all called me harmful and obscene.

My personal definition of obscene? Yes, thank you. My definition, I have sons that are 23 and 20, and even though they are adults, if something came on the TV I wouldn't want to see in front of them, I would call that obscene. Follow-up question.

No, of course not. then I don't have to give the work. But the books being removed from libraries don't have that either.

Thank you.

sorry there no last name provided so we not seen Kinsey We move on to our next witness Elizabeth Katowicz

Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Melody Wojno. I am an Ohio resident, a transgender woman, and a drag performer known as Maelstrom West. I am here to respectfully urge you to oppose House Bill 249. Like many people across the state, I simply want to live my life safely and authentically in my community. Laws like House Bill 249 send a message that people like me, people whose gender expression does not match what others expect, are inherently inappropriate or dangerous in public spaces. That message is deeply harmful and does not reflect the reality of who we are at our core. This bill creates broad and vague definitions around quote-unquote adult cabaret performances and gender expression. As written, it risks labeling ordinary forms of expression such as performing, hosting community events, or even simply existing visibly as a gender nonconforming person as something inherently sexual or inappropriate. This not only stigmatizes LGBTQ plus people, but also creates legal uncertainty that could halt artistic expression, community gatherings, and my public life. Drag and gender non-conforming performances are performances of art, storytelling, and culture. They have existed for centuries across many traditions. They are not inherently obscene, and they are not a threat to children or families. In fact, many of these events are joyful, creative spaces that bring communities together. More importantly, bills like this affect real people. They contribute to an environment where transgender and gender nonconforming Ohioans feel increasingly unsafe, unwelcome, and targeted by law. When legislation singles out a marginalized group in this way, it reinforces stigma and misunderstanding rather than addressing real problems facing our state. Drag is not a new form of expression and has been enjoyed by audiences for centuries. From the stages of Shakespeare, where men routinely performed in female roles, to modern cultural touchstones like RuPaul's Drag Race, drag has long been a recognized and celebrated form of theatrical and artistic expression. Bills like this do not simply regulate something new or unfamiliar. They restrict an art form that has been part of our shared cultural history for generations. The same tradition that allows performances at venues at the Ohio Theater, where Ohio's own Nina's West played at Naturblad and Hairspray to cultural acclaim, is the reason this bill now places under suspicion. My apologies. At the same time, these performances also take place in smaller community venues like District West. These spaces provide community belonging and creative expression for many Ohioans, including myself. HB 249 risk limiting where this long-standing art can exist and who can safely participate in it. Art should bring communities together and not be singled out for restriction because of who performs it or how gender is expressed I ask this community to consider the real human impact of this legislation People like me are your neighbors co family members friends and constituents We are active members of our communities We deserve the same dignity freedom of expression, and protection under the law as anyone else. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for the community to reject House Bill 249. Thank you for your time and

Williams with a question. Thank you, Chair. At the very end there, you said you deserve the same dignity, freedom of expression, and protection under the law. Yes. Under this bill, it protects your freedom of expression and protection under the law because it applies uniformly to all performers in the state of Ohio. So as a performer, under this bill, you can be charged if you engage in obscene conduct in the presence of a minor. Why do you believe that as a performer, you should be able, by definition, to engage in conduct that has a dominant tendency to arouse lust in a juvenile, essentially, display or depicting sexual activity, masturbation, sexual excitement, or nudity? Because that's what's prohibited in the bill. So if you're in opposition to the bill, That means you want the right to do these acts. So as a performer, as a performer, why do you believe it is appropriate for any performer to engage in obscene conduct in the presence of a minor?

Ladies and gentlemen, please remember to remain civil and respectful.

From the chair to the representative, I think that we're finally touching on the real target of the legislation here. Because I went to the prior hearing, and there was very, very few discussions about actual drag performance. This is a bill disguised as drag banning that targets trans individuals. If you want to reform whatever code outside of this, that's another hearing. I'll come with my facts for that. But that is not what we're discussing today.

I'm happy to be here for a bill like this. Thank you.

Correct. And then there is a list of additional features that include topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers. and then among that list is performers or entertainers who exhibit a gender identity that is different from the performers' or entertainers' biological sex, and it goes on.

and then defines who you are. Thank you. I mean, it's my livelihood. It's my life. I live my life proudly as an out queer trans person. My right to do that is in question with that language. And that is the vagueness that my other opponents have discussed. It's not the vagueness on what's obscene or not. That is a problem. But when you lump in any trans person no matter how they are presenting with strippers go dancers and the like not that I have a problem with those but like I puts a target on us just living our lives Those other things are performances My life is not a performance I I am a proud Ohioan I have only lived outside of the state to do an internship at Disney World I make sure that the people around me in my community are safe And with that language we are not

What concerns do you have with this legislature or with the court system interpreting what might be harmful to juveniles? I think that if we roll back the record for today, it'll just show plainly. They're not interested in protecting children. They're interested in making sure that we don't have our voice. That has nothing to do with... Show me examples of where strippers are going out to parking lots and performing for kids. That's a metaphorical straw man argument. That's not what's happening. My life as a trans person in Ohio is happening every single day. And because of that, I do have great concern. I am concerned, when has law enforcement, especially in Columbus, ever looked after marginalized communities first? They don't. It's a vast issue. And the courts, I mean, most trans people, if we're talking about the economy, it's in the gutter. We're artists. We don't have the money or resources to protect ourselves like most do. If we do, it's public servants. or it's organizations like TransOhio or the ACLU that help us. And with this proposed legislature, that bogs up their lines as well. So it's dangerous. It's frankly very dangerous for people like me. Thank you.

About eight months. Internship. Yeah.

Disney World. I lived in Orlando. The Orlando one. Yes. Very good.

I turned 27 in May. Okay, so it's one out of 27. So you live 96% of your life in Ohio. Yes.

Thank you for the question. No, absolutely not. When I was growing up, I come from a very specific background. I come from a family of divorce. But through that divorce, I learned a very good lesson. My mother, who has since passed away, was a staunch Republican. She was from Alabama. My father is a South Democrat living in Dayton. So growing up, hearing both sides of the coin and having to figure it out myself, felt like the Ohio way. We were a swing state for decades. We were proud of that We were proud that we were a state where opposing voices could come together and find a common ground That has since gone out the window And this bill is proof of that or this proposed legislature is proof of that So no, I don't think that we are showing our best with this.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony. I may be misinterpreting some of your testimonies, so correct me if I'm wrong. I think the concern was that you're going to be prosecuted or criminally charged for simply walking down the street under this bill or being in a public space. If I'm wrong in your answer, please correct that.

Follow up. Again, not putting your words in your mouth. But it did sound like there's, you know, I understand your concern for public space. It did sound like in your answer there is some acknowledgement that it would be appropriate to determine what's appropriate for children and what's not, assuming in a perfect world that that would be applied perfectly. And I understand your concern for that aspect. But from what I'm hearing, you do tend to agree that there's a fair discussion to be had about what's appropriate for children and what's not.

Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

Our next witness is Brenda Lani. Welcome to committee. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions for the witness?

Well, there's a part in the bill that performers or entertainers who exhibit a gender identity that is not different from the performers or entertainers, biological sex, wearing, et cetera, et cetera, prosthetics, and so on and so forth. It's a part of my character. It's a part of my theater. It's part of what... There are so many individuals out there who would take that moment to say that I am not representing my own biological sex to stand in front of children, and they have many, many times, would want me to go to jail, would want me to not be a part of this community as a whole. That is why I said what I said as a part of my fear as a performer that does read to children as a literacy program. Yes.

From the chair to the representative?

Follow up? Then this bill does not apply. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Did you want to expand on your answer?

Okay.

so the statute wouldn't apply. So this idea in your testimony that somehow we're going to prevent you from doing that, then it's false. Now we move on to your other thing where you talk about you doing performances. And just like everybody else, are you engaging in obscene conduct or conduct that's harmful to juveniles during those performances?

Then the bill wouldn't apply to those performances.

Follow-up. Every statute is subjective.

Every statute. Murder, felony murder, A1 murder, says that the defendant acts with a purpose. To charge someone with A1, the officer is making a judgment call whether or not you had the mental state of purposefully killing someone. That's a subjective call. Every statute is subjective. And you judge it based on the outward expressions of the defendant. That's called an objective manifestation of internal intent. Every statute is like that. This isn't different. Tell me why this statute is different. Tell me why you said you don't engage in obscene conduct. You don't engage in conduct that's harmful to juveniles by definition. Tell me how this statute is any different then because it wouldn't apply to anything you're doing.

Any other questions for the witness?

Good afternoon.

Good morning, or afternoon.

Chair Thomas, rejected, respected committee members. I moved my family to Ohio over a decade ago because I was looking for a great place to raise kids. I'm a mom of three. I'm a librarian and a grant writer. And in addition to countless classic story hours, my children began going to drag story times in 2019. And our first was hosted by the wonderful Nina West. Hey, girl. She was funny. She was silly. She had huge hair and a voluminous pink gown. And the children were enthralled, not only because she was a radiant vision of cotton candy come alive, which she totally was, but because she was a great reader. I don't know if you've ever met a child before, but they love funny and silly, and they love big, huge hair, and they love a good reader, as long as they do the voices. And you know, Nina, she does those voices, okay? Being read aloud to by someone who defies our expectations of gender performance not only promotes literacy, but it flexes our empathy muscles and it saves lives. This kind of programming is really really important to my family and it has merit But if we can see eye to eye on that perhaps we can agree that I have the right to teach my own children about the values that I deem important We've already discussed the various ways that there are existing state and federal laws in place to protect children from obscenities and how none of them apply to a children's story hour or a dance class, which are, of course, not obscene. And if you think drag performance for all ages a modern phenomenon, again, as others have pointed out, have I got some news for you about Shakespeare. This bill is written so broadly as to put anyone under the microscope for their gender perception or presentation, including not only the trans and intersex people that I personally know and love and am very concerned for, but also the cisgendered women in your lives who maybe prefer overalls to skirts, just for an example. House Bill 245 from last year was nearly identical and it failed, so I'm asking why this is a legislative priority when everyday citizens are struggling to buy groceries and put gas in the tank. This bill isn't just bad for parents and free speech, it's bad for business. The creative sector in this state directly generates $32.9 billion annually, 3% of the state's GDP. That's a larger economic contribution than education or agriculture. But this bill chills the performing arts industry statewide. It injures beloved local businesses and it harms the local traditions and local economies around pride and drag performance and they are significant. So if you can't say no to this bill for families like mine or for the folks in this room who will be directly impacted and unjustly criminalized, you may want to do it for local economies that will be impacted by this legislation. Thank you so much for the opportunity

Vice Chair Swearingen with a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Question around the definition of harmful to juveniles. In your opinion, and this has been a constant theme today, is there anything that is appropriate to label in statute as harmful to juveniles, or is everything at the discretion of parents?

Quick follow-up. Quick follow-up, just more general. It is your testimony, though, that there are things out there that are harmful to juveniles that they shouldn't engage in under the age of 18.

Yes, certainly. Okay. Follow-up? Do you know how many people attend that event every year?

Follow-up?

No, that's it. Thank you.

I really, I think that from an information literacy point and from a library perspective, the idea of obscenity having this, you know, the Miller test, as I already explained, I think that there's like a precedent, right? It's the harmful to minors portion. I think that there are a lot of people out there that consider just being LGBTQIA plus to be a harmful concept to a minor. I would not count myself among them, and I think that is deeply harmful, right? So I feel like I didn't really answer your question, but...

Sure. There's video games that are very violent, very aggressive. Totally.

I mean, as far as not from prosecutors and law enforcement, from the general public. I think so many have spoken to that unwillingness of producers and venues and performers to want to take on that liability. I can immediately see my child's dance class not happening. I can immediately see an inability for me to take my children to these types of, to like a drag story hour, for example. I already know that the local libraries experience reluctance and fear around producing those events. And so it becomes a loss of opportunity. I moved here again to give my children everything and to give them exposure and opportunity to, you know, the San Francisco of the Midwest. I wanted them to feel their queer roots and what I worry about keeping them here. We are already planning to leave the state at the end of the school year because of bills like this, because of that chilling effect. I worry that they will not have access to programming like this.

I don't feel qualified to really answer to those trends. I can only speak from my personal experience. I myself am moving to Montana, which is interesting in the context. So, no, I don't recommend that.

Thank you, members of the House Judiciary Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I'm going to go slightly off script here, and because I only have three minutes, I can't go into a great amount of detail, But I'm a teacher at The Ohio State University. I provide child care services for the North Columbus Quaker meeting, and I volunteer my time at Kaleidoscope Youth Center running role-playing games for the young people there. I am also a trans woman. I'm here because although there are many reprehensible aspects of the bill being discussed today, there's been a lot of discussion about the specifics, and I would like to make an attempt to answer Representative Williams' question, which has been asked many times. I'm not an attorney. I'm just a citizen, and I had to dig through multiple sub-clauses to get here. But I'd like to draw the attention of the committee to several sections. First, the one that has been pointed out multiple times for a Section 5, specifying adult cabaret as any performers or entertainers who exhibit gender identity that's different from the performers or entertainers' biological sex. Secondly, it has been said by Representative Williams and Swearengin, I believe, that Division B-2 of this section shall not be construed to prohibit or restrict a bona fide film, theatrical, artistic endeavor, etc. that is not obscene or harmful to juveniles. Now, there is a problem here. The problem is, one, this means that the government and law enforcers and lawmakers are now in the position of determining what is and is not a bona fide, quote-unquote, artistic performance. Two, there's been a lot of discussion about the definition of harmful to juveniles. And, again, I only have a minute left, so I can't do much. But from what I read in the Ohio Revised Code 2907.1, the definition is that if it is considered purient, if the material or performance is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for juveniles, and if the material or performance, when considered as a whole, lacks serious artistic merit. I think it's very easy to see how that kind of language could be easily manipulated to target people who lawmakers and enforcers of the law consider offensive to, quote, dominant standards. That is extremely subjective, extremely vague, and very, very dangerous as a precedent. The danger with this bill is not only what it will enforce here and now, but what precedent it will set for further enforcement and further restrictions on speech and gender expression I have a lot more that I could say but I needed to make that point Thank you Thank you for your testimony Are there any questions for the witness

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for testifying today. So you pointed to the section where it mentions bona fide theatrical performances and said that we are now going to be giving law enforcement or government officials the ability to determine what is a bona fide theatrical performance. That section is a direct quote from the 1973 California Miller First Amendment case that established obscenity. That is in the criteria for obscene material in the definition found in 2907.01 that it doesn't apply. We took that out and regurgitated it into the bill just to make it easier for people to read it so they wouldn't have to go find the definition separately. To make sure that in the bill I put the language that it doesn't apply to these bona fide theatrical performances because of concerns about Mrs. Delft Fire performances or Shakespeare performances. Even though I knew as a lawyer it didn't apply, the lay person didn't. So we took it and put it right back in the bill in underlying format so the average reader could see it. So we're not creating anything new about how we interpret or the government determining what is bona fide theatrical.

But you didn't scroll back up to Section E under Harmful to Juvenile, where it said it has to deal with nudity or sexual conduct. So it's not just this little vague standard that you only want to highlight a small portion of. It's the whole entire statute that says it has to deal with any material performance describing or representing nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse in any form to which all of the following apply. So were you aware that it has to involve nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse on top of the two sections that you quoted? Were you aware that that was in the definition?

Yes, please.

Any other questions? Ranking Member Sinberg has a question.

Thank you for that. I do think that there would be a great amount of disagreement, confusion, and fear generated by this bill. I will say, too, I am an English Ph.D. student. I read and write things as part of my profession. It took me a lot of work to go through this bill and figure out what it was trying to say. Now, I'm still, and even upon doing that, I'm still not sure that I entirely understand what it is trying to communicate, or more specifically, to your point, what exactly is and is not prohibited. There's been a lot of discussion about this, but from what I can gather, your point is, and I agree with it, that somebody reading this bill could easily be very confused and afraid that their performance, even if it is not explicitly sexual, could be criminalized under this bill. Even if that case was never brought to court, somebody reading this bill, somebody like myself would be very worried. I am very worried. I am very afraid that my artistic performances, my work with children, any of this could be criminalized, that I could be charged with felonies. And, you know, I appreciate, Representative Swearingen, you know, your assurances that I would not be, but forgive me if I don't take your assurances as, you know, protection. I think I and many others in this state, like, I mean, I was speaking with my mother about the possibility of having to leave the state for this bill to pass, because not only is it, not only could it create the kind of fear and confusion that you're talking about, Representative Seinenberg, but as many others have pointed out too, it would make me, you know, I do not have the resources or the time to defend myself in court from something like this. So even the threat of being brought up on charges could ruin my life, you know, as it could for many others, and therefore I would be extremely hesitant to do this kind of work, as I believe many others would in this state. Thank you.

I was born and raised in Ohio. I have lived in a few other places in my life, but I live here now. My parents are here. Nearly everyone I love lives here. I do not want to leave this state. I love this state. I love the people here. But this legislation and legislation like it, the direction of the political temperature in the state, is really frightening to me and is pushing me to consider that, as I believe it is with many others.

So thank you for that.

Any other, I'm sorry, are you finished?

Any other questions for the witness?

Thank you. Our next witness is Daniel Fiersich. Welcome to committee. Please proceed when you're ready.

Your time has expired. Are there any questions for the... Representative Williams has a question.

I thought we were being civil and respectful today, Chair Thomas. Please keep your comments to the bill.

Chair, point of order. Point of order on the questioning here. I mean, come on. Denigrating the entire organization?

Okay, thank you. So you kept saying you find it obscene, you find it obscene for this, you find it obscene for that. Well, what you find obscene is not the relevance in the bill. It's what the statute and the Supreme Court has said is obscene. You cited several pieces of legislation that I did not take inspiration from when drafting this legislation. I sat down for months drafting it to make sure it holds up the constitutional muster, that it is content neutral, and that it only looks at the actions of the performer and whether or not they rise to the level of obscenity. That is what the Supreme Court has said since 1973 that we can do. And that's what this bill does. So tell me in this bill what special section of this bill you think is unconstitutional. Because the court has said that I can regulate obscene material. The court has said I can regulate what is harmful to a juvenile. The court has said it time and time again that we have a governmental interest in regulating and protecting the children in the state of Ohio. And all this bill says is that a performer should not engage in obscene conduct or conduct that is harmful to a minor in the presence of children. So if you believe that that should be permitted please explain to the committee why you think people should be able to engage in actual obscene conduct by definition in actual conduct that harmful to a juvenile by definition in the presence of a minor Explain to us why you and your organization believe that's appropriate in the state of Ohio.

Vice Chair Swearingen has a question.

Through the chair to the representative, we have discussed how many times today that these laws already exist. If you want to say that this isn't actually targeting people because of their gender expression, all you have to do is take out the language the way they did on the Arkansas bill. They gutted the language about one's biological sex and subjective experience of gender because that literally targeted a very specific community for a very specific purpose. So you can do this as much as you want, but take the language that is harmful out.

Through the chair to the representative, the portion of the bill that is talking about the public display of a gender identity different from one's biological sex and how it is defined within the text of this bill, it is entirely unnecessary and it is purposeful.

Our next witness is Jamie Miracle. Is Jamie Miracle here? One more call for Jamie Miracle. Our next witness is Nicholas Harold. Is Nicholas here? Nicholas Harold. Our next witness is Micah Shapiro. Next witness is Micah Shapiro here. Our next witness is Minna.

Sure, that's fine.

So, just before you start, we have a hard stop at 1245, so you're going to be our last witness. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions for the witness? Thank you. Seeing none, we thank you for your testimony. So as we've come up to our time to stop, please note that we're sorry that we didn't get to everybody, but thank you for making the effort to come today. And we're going to convert the testimony to written only. And please note that there's a number of written only testimonies on your iPads as well. and this will conclude the third hearing for House Bill 249. Seeing no further business before the committee, the committee stands adjourned.