(The Center Square) – The Nevada Senate Committee on Education heard a bill that would change the way parents notify schools if they want their children to attend sex education classes.
Assembly Bill 205 says parents who don’t want their children to participate in sex education classes must sign a form opting out of these classes.
Current law in Nevada requires parents to sign a form opting in to sex education classes.
AB 205 mandates schools notify parents annually about this form no later than four weeks after the school year starts or four weeks before the sex education course begins, whichever occurs first.
Under this legislation, if a parent doesn’t sign one of these forms opting their child out of a sex education class, the child must participate in the class.
AB 205 allows parents to sign this form anytime during the school year. Once signed, the child can withdraw from a sex education class.
The form would be available online for parents to sign. More details would be announced later on how to do that.
AB 205 would take effect July 1, impacting the state’s 2025-26 school year.
At Monday’s hearing, bill sponsor state Assemblymember Heather Goulding, D-Sun Valley, called AB 205 a “focused, narrowly tailored bill that proposes a simple but meaningful change” to Nevada law.
The part of allowing parents to opt out of sex education classes protects parental rights while minimizing “administrative burdens on families and educators,” she said.
Goulding explained Nevada is one of five states that require parents to “affirmatively opt in” for their children to attend sex education classes. She added that 93% of Nevada parents choose to enroll their children in these classes.
According to the Democrat, only 2% of Nevada parents opt out of sex education classes. She said another 5% fail to respond, which means those kids don’t attend these classes.
Goulding said these kids miss out on “critical knowledge.”
“The consequence of maintaining the status quo is clear. Students, particularly the most vulnerable [and] students with disengaged parents, are at a higher risk of suffering the consequences of engaging in risky behavior simply because their parents didn’t return a permission slip,” she said.
Goulding also said AB 205 “improves health outcomes.”
“Sexual health education helps reduce teen pregnancies, prevent sexually transmitted infections and supports the development of healthy relationships,” she explained.
For parents who opt out of these classes, Goulding said she respected their decision.
Dr. Sandra Coch, a practicing OBGYN representing the Nevada section of the American College of OBGYNs, said the organization believes all students in the state should be allowed to receive “protective health information.”
“Knowledge is power. Children need to be equipped with tools that can help them to avoid being victims of child abuse, grooming, internet blackmail, sexting, unplanned pregnancies, sex trafficking and sexually transmitted diseases,” Coch said.
“They need to know how to ask for help and who to reach out to if they are being victimized or in trouble,” she added.
Due to the current state law, thousands of Nevada students cannot receive this education, Coch said.
She added that her organization would like to remove Nevada from the list that uses the opt-in model regarding sex education classes.
The practicing OBGYN said ACOG believes parents “should be the first source” of information regarding sexual health. She added her organization supports the notification for parents to opt their children out of these classes.
Coch said the parents who opt out of these classes are actively involved in the children’s lives and will provide “scientifically based education for their children.”
“It was disappointing to hear AB 205 described as a radicalizing sex-ed bill,” the OGBYN said.
The bill’s purpose is to “protect thousands of Nevada children who are currently denied the opportunity to gain protective health information due to non-responsive parents,” Coch said.
Jim DeGraffenreid, the national committeeman for the Nevada GOP, said changing the state’s current policy, which mandates specific parental consent, to an opt-out system would create an additional step for a parent to refuse attendance.
“This is not good policy” because parents have the right to know beforehand what “classes their children are taking,” DeGraffenreid said.
He added the current system is working well because a large number of parents participate in the opt-in system.
“It seems unlikely that bringing this small percentage of nonresponders into the system will have a meaningful effect on the high rates of activity and associated consequences,” he stated.
DeGraffenreid also said local school boards should determine the curriculum. However, he noted the curriculum at the local level is influenced by outside special interest groups, which makes the opting-in policy “critical.”
“We believe that parents should need to opt-in to curriculum that they may disagree with,” DeGraffenreid said.
