Wyoming House hears heated debate on parent-rights bill after dispute over "gender ideology" language

House Bill 200, a parent‑notification measure sponsored by Representative Webb, drew extended floor debate Tuesday after several lawmakers tried to remove or narrow language in the bill that they described as a definition of "gender ideology." Representative Webb is the bill sponsor.

Supporters of the first amendment, moved by Representative Chasticks, sought to delete references to "gender ideology" from the green copy of the bill and argued the phrase misstates science. "Gender is something we all know about. It's not an ideology," Chasticks said on the floor. Opponents, including the majority leader, said the bill itself was written to address parental notice and that the disputed language was essential to its purpose. The House voted; the amendment was not adopted.

Members then debated two additional amendments. Representative Campbell moved a second amendment that sought to remove sections she said fell outside the bill's parental‑notice scope and should be left to school districts. Representative Jarvis offered a third reading amendment to avoid requiring school staff to interrupt supervision of students (for example, during extracurricular activities) to notify parents immediately. Both amendments were debated and defeated on voice vote.

Why it matters: The bill is framed as giving parents more information about school activities affecting their children; opponents of the language change said the disputed phrases reflect the bill’s intent to address curricula and school practices, while proponents of the changes said statutory text should not embed disputed scientific claims.

Details and outcomes - Sponsor: Representative Webb (House sponsor). - Amendment 1 (remove references to "gender ideology," moved by Rep. Chasticks): brought to the floor and defeated; the chair announced "The amendment has not been adopted." - Amendment 2 (moved by Rep. Campbell): defeated. - Amendment 3 (moved by Rep. Jarvis, limiting timing requirements for staff notifications): defeated. - Procedural status: House Bill 200 was ordered read for a third time; the transcript does not record a final passage roll call for the bill in this session excerpt.

Discussion highlights - Rep. Chasticks: urged deleting the definition, calling the bill’s definition "scientifically false." - Rep. Campbell: said parts of the draft were policy decisions better left to local school boards and raised concerns about requiring staff to contact parents while supervising activities. - Rep. Harshman and others: cautioned about tone and urged accuracy in statements about schools and teachers.

Next steps: The bill was taken to third reading; any subsequent votes or final disposition were not recorded in the provided transcript.

Ending note: The debate focused on how the state statute should describe classroom content and district policy versus core parental‑notification rules; lawmakers on both sides framed their positions as protecting either parental rights or accurate scientific description.