Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost appealed a ruling declaring the state’s ban on puberty blockers for minors unconstitutional. The ruling blocked the ban on puberty blockers but left in place bans on gender-affirming surgeries and boys playing girls’ sports.

The Center Square reports:

State Attorney General Dave Yost took his fight to keep the state’s ban on puberty blockers in place to the Ohio Supreme Court.

After an appeals court failed to issue a stay to its ruling that ruled the ban unconstitutional, Yost wants the state’s higher court to leave the law in place while he continues to appeal.

Yost filed his second motion for a stay late Thursday.

“This fight is far from over – and until it is, there’s no sense in toggling the law on and off like a light switch,” Yost said in a statement. “With the case now in the hands of the Ohio Supreme Court, we believe the law remains in effect as the case moves forward. We hope that the Ohio Supreme Court will confirm that, so there’s no doubt that our children remain protected.”

The 10th District Court of Appeals denial of Yost’s first motion for a stay leaves a Franklin County Court of Common Pleas injunction stopping part of House Bill 68 from taking effect.

Yost appealed that ruling and lost in the 10th District. He’s appealing the injunction to the Supreme Court.

“We look forward to showing once again that the Legislature acted properly in enacting this constitutional law, which protects our children from irreversible medical decisions,” Yost said. “I remain confident that the law will be upheld.”

The court blocked the provision that banned puberty blockers and other prescription drugs for minors. It left in place a ban on gender-affirming surgeries for minors and a ban on boys playing girls sports.

The lawsuit, filed a year ago by two sets of parents with help from the ACLU, did not challenge House Bill 68’s provisions that banned gender-affirming surgery for minors and males playing female sports.

The ruling said the state does not ban the same drugs when used for other reasons, which makes the ban inequitable. It also said the ban interferes with parents’ rights to make health care decisions for their children.

U.S. Senator Katherine Cortez Masto introduced the SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act, which aims to raise the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) asset limit from $2,000 to $10,000 for individuals and from $3,000 to $20,000 for couples. The bill, which has bipartisan support, would also guarantee regular adjustments for inflation and is expected to make over 200,000 Americans newly eligible for the program.

The Center Square reports:

More than 7 million Americans and 50,000 Nevada residents receive monthly payments from the Social Security Administration’s Supplemental Security Income program for the elderly and people with significant disabilities.

The SSI program is intended for people with little money or income. Signed into law under President Richard Nixon’s administration, the program sets the maximum finances for somebody to receive help from SSI at $2,000 – and $3,000 for a married couple. Today, an elderly disabled person with $2,500 in total value of all of their assets is still deemed too well-off to receive any money through this program.

“A $2,000 rainy-day fund doesn’t go as far as it did in 1989, but that’s all the savings that people who rely on SSI benefits are allowed,” said U.S. Sen. Katherine Cortez Masto, D-Nevada, who helped introduce the SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act.

“We shouldn’t punish people who are working hard, saving their money and planning for the future,” Cortez Masto said in a news release. “Congress must raise the SSI asset limit to help our seniors and Americans with disabilities.”

The SSI code was last adjusted for inflation in 1989, which has left the asset limits at $2,000 and $3,000 for over four decades. The maximum monthly payment for an individual this year is $967.

The SSI bill would give the asset minimums a modern update – from $2,000 to $10,000 for individuals and from $3,000 to $20,000 for couples.

“Raising the SSI asset limits is a smart, long-overdue reform that updates a critical program to reflect today’s economic realities,” said U.S. Rep. Fitzpatrick, R-Pennsylvania, who proposed a companion bill to the House of Representatives.

The increased asset limit would be expected to make over 200,000 Americans newly eligible for the program.

The bill would also guarantee regular asset limit adjustments for inflation. That would be based on the Consumer Price Index change over year, with no option for the asset limit to decrease. That means the $10,000 and $20,000 limits would be expected to rise in coming years.

But the bill will not change monthly payments. The highest monthly assistance an individual could receive is $967.

The bill has received support from lawmakers, organizations and businesses from across the country.

“The big thing is that this is a common sense fix,” said a spokesperson for Cortez Masto.

“It has bipartisan support. You’ve also got support from so many organizations and groups,” the spokesperson told The Center Square.

The bill does not yet have a hearing date.