The following article was originally published in the Ohio Capital Journal and published on News5Cleveland.com under a content-sharing agreement.
Constituents writing to the sponsors of an Ohio bill seeking to regulate and ban most drag performances largely spoke out against the bill, though there were some who praised the effort.
Documents obtained by the Capital Journal through a public records request show many criticisms of House Bill 245, including several Ohioans who said the bill was a waste of legislative time.
“Once again, (you) and your colleagues are more worried about made up issues than the state health care, women’s health, infant mortality, jobs, education, retention of our college graduates, infrastructure and real issues,” Rocky River resident Diane Zucker wrote.
The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Angela King, R-Celina, and state Rep. Josh Williams, R-Sylvania Twp., would create punishments ranging from a first-degree misdemeanor to a fourth-degree felony “depending on the circumstances of the offense” for violating a new charge of “unlawful adult cabaret performance.”
An “adult cabaret performance” is defined in the bill as a performance “in a location other than an adult cabaret that is harmful to juveniles or obscene,” which features such performers as topless dancers or “performers or entertainers who exhibit a gender identity that is different from the performer’s or entertainer’s gender assigned at birth using clothing, makeup, prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts, or other physical markers.”
Performers “who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest” would also fall under the regulations in the bill.
Under the proposed legislation, one could be charged with a first-degree misdemeanor if the “performance occurs in the presence of a juvenile,” and a fourth-degree felony “if the performance involved is obscene and if the performance occurs in the presence of a juvenile who is under 13 years of age,” according to an analysis by the Legislative Service Commission.
Performances or materials considered “harmful to juveniles” under the bill would include those that are “patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for juveniles” and what “when considered as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value for juveniles.”
Cleveland’s Joshua Jones Forbes said his work at a nonprofit includes promoting artists and performances at local theaters and restaurants, calling the artistry “essential to our community.”
“H.B. 245 as written would criminalize our neighborhood artists,” he wrote, adding that the measure would “only create dangerous ‘gender’ policing and will cement Ohio’s reputation of being a bigoted state to avoid.”
Some who stood against the bill gave examples of gender-bending characters already accepted into culture — such as a character in Shakespeare’s “Twelfth Night,” who disguises herself as a man, and Robin Williams’ performance in “Mrs. Doubtfire” — expressing concern that theater performances or even youth productions of certain works might be impacted by the bill.
“My theater kid often performs as different genders on stage — you have no right telling her that is illegal,” Lakewood resident Stacey Whiteamire wrote. “Stop trying to control things you may not agree with. Trust parents to make their own decisions.”
The bill has only had two hearings since being assigned to the Ohio House Criminal Justice Committee: one in which the sponsors introduced the bill, and another in which proponents gave testimony on why the bill should become law.
In the proponent hearing, H.B. 245 received support from the America First Policy Institute, state-level right-wing advocacy group Ohio Value Voters, religious lobby the Center for Christian Virtue, and a group called Gays Against Groomers. The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed Gays Against Groomers as a hate group, saying it “directs online harassment and intimidation campaigns targeting LGBTQ+ people and events including drag shows, hospitals and libraries.”
Jana Warnecke, who said she was a chapter leader for Gays Against Groomers in her testimony to the House Criminal Justice Committee, said during her testimony, “In our view, Ohio House Bill 245 sets the gold standard for legislation in combating the unnecessary exposure of sexual materials or adult entertainment performances where children may be present.”
Celina’s city council president, Jason King, also spoke in favor of the bill, saying the council has “had much debate between citizens over the inappropriate nature of these adult-themed performances.”
He falls into the camp that thinks the state should intervene, keeping drag performances from taking place on public grounds like parks.
“Under the First Amendment banner of free speech, these individuals claim that they can basically do as they please in our public spaces as a guaranteed right,” Jason King told the committee. “But one person’s First Amendment rights should not be sacrificed at the expense of another.”
In response to email requests for comment from some members of the media, Rep. King said the legislation “has one purpose, protecting children,” and the measure “will not restrict anyone’s freedom.”
“Mrs. Doubtfire, that’s not what this bill is about,” she wrote. “The bill addresses acts of obscenity and sexualized performances in front of children.”
In one email from July 2023, Jeff Dillon, Ohio legislative director for the conservative group Americans for Prosperity, said Rep. Williams reached out to AFP “to ask if our organization had a position on H.B. 245 and wanted to see if AFP could provide feedback before the bill receives committee hearings in the coming months.”
Dillon did not give a position in the email, but offered virtual meetings connecting the representatives and policy analysts from the national headquarters of AFP in Washington, D.C., “who covers issues pertaining to Free Speech/First Amendment rights.”
An aide for Williams said the co-sponsors “would be happy to meet” in a follow-up email.
Typically, a bill has at least three hearings — one for the sponsors, one for supporters, and another for opposition — before being considered for passage out of the committee and on for a full chamber vote. The legislature is currently on summer break and isn’t scheduled to return until after the November general election, which would lead to a rushed process for the bill to be passed before the 135th General Assembly term is up at the end of the year.
