Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Curriculum Content Requirements topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Public asks Lake County School Board to put 'Baby Olivia' fetal‑development video ordinance on future agenda

3319122 · May 15, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A pair of public commenters urged the board to adopt a local ordinance requiring a fetal‑development video (the 'Baby Olivia' video) be shown to students in grades 6–12; speakers noted similar bills in other states and in the Florida House this year but no board action followed.

During public input at the May 12 meeting, two speakers asked the Lake County School Board to place a draft local ordinance on a future agenda that would require human embryonic and fetal development instruction — including a video known as the "Baby Olivia" video — for students in grades 6 through 12.

Brother Steven Gerrard Cytlowski read a draft ordinance into the record that, as written, would add a new section to the district’s growth and development curriculum requiring a high‑definition ultrasound video of fetal development of at least three minutes and a computer‑generated rendering or animation similar to the Live Action "Meet Baby Olivia" video. Cytlowski described the ordinance text and provided a three‑page packet to the board.

Kristen Nelson, who identified herself as supporting the proposal, told the board that several states — she named Tennessee, North Dakota and Iowa — have adopted similar requirements and that the Florida House had passed a bill this year requiring fetal development videos in public school health instruction but that the measure "was unfortunately killed in the Florida Senate." Nelson said the "Baby Olivia" video would "fit in perfectly with this proposed curriculum" and asked the board to place the draft ordinance on a future agenda.

Board members did not take action on the proposal during the meeting. The comments were made during the public‑input portion and were received for the record; no motion was made to place the ordinance on an upcoming agenda during the session.