Committee introduces parental‑consent (opt‑in) RS after extended debate and roll‑call votes

Representative Barbara Ehart, R‑District 33, presented RS 32‑287, a parental‑consent (opt‑in) measure regarding instruction that "addresses human sexuality." Ehart repeatedly described the bill as about parental consent rather than content, and she proposed an amendment to insert the words "specifically and narrowly" after the phrase "addresses human sexuality" to clarify scope.

The RS would require written parental permission before a child receives instruction defined as addressing human sexuality; teachers would provide a brief description of the material to parents and parents could review instructional materials. The RS also specifies that if a child is provided the material without prior permission, districts and boards of trustees would have 30 days to rectify the situation before a parent could pursue a private civil cause of action. Ehart said the change is intended to move districts from an "opt‑out" to an "opt‑in" posture so parents control whether children receive such instruction.

"This is about consent, not content," Representative Barbara Ehart said during her introduction. She told members the bill would not change the state's current sex‑education statutes but would require written parental permission before exposing students to instruction that falls under the RS definition.

Committee members pressed the sponsor on scope and instructional impact. Representatives asked whether the RS would affect instruction in art (for example, study of Michelangelo’s David), literature, Supreme Court cases, digital literacy, or discussions about Biblical passages. Ehart and supporters said the "specifically and narrowly" insertion was intended to keep standard art, legal and historical instruction outside the definition unless the material met the RS definition of instruction addressing human sexuality.

Representative Church offered a substitute motion to return the RS to the sponsor for work‑back; that substitute motion failed on a roll call (committee recorded a 4‑9 result in the transcript). The committee then voted on the sponsor’s motion to introduce RS 32‑287 with the requested amendment (inserting "specifically and narrowly" after the phrase in line 34). The committee recorded a roll‑call vote of 13‑0 with one absent/excused; the motion carried and the RS was introduced with the amendment.

The hearing included extensive questioning from committee members about legal definitions, classroom practicality and the potential for unintended effects on non‑sex‑education coursework. Several members said they would support introduction but intended to work further with the sponsor on language. Representative Ehart and supporters repeatedly emphasized parental control and transparency; opponents and some questioners raised concerns about classroom instruction in art, literature, digital literacy and constitutional law topics.

The committee did not take final action beyond introducing the RS with the amendment; further drafting, stakeholder input and committee amendments are expected before any floor vote.