Nevada bill would switch K–12 human sexuality classes from opt‑in to opt‑out; supporters cite gaps for vulnerable students

CARSON CITY — Assembly Bill 205 would change Nevada law so students are enrolled by default in human sexuality instruction and parents must submit a written refusal to keep a child out of the class, Assemblymember Heather Golding told the Senate Committee on Education during a Feb. 1 hearing.

Supporters said the state’s current opt‑in system leaves about 5 percent of pupils without access to lessons they say reduce teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections and help children recognize and report abuse. ‘‘AB 205 is a focused, narrowly tailored bill that proposes a simple but meaningful change,’’ Golding said, adding the proposal preserves parental authority by requiring annual notification and allowing parents to remove a child at any time.

The bill’s backers, including physicians from the Nevada section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told the committee the change would reduce paperwork for families and teachers and reach students whose parents do not return permission slips. Dr. Sandra Koch, an OB‑GYN who co‑presented, said the same medical organizations and the American Academy of Pediatrics support making curriculum transparent but moving to opt‑out enrollment.

Proponents repeatedly cited statewide figures presented during the hearing: Golding and witnesses said roughly 93 percent of Nevada parents currently opt in to human sexuality instruction, about 2 percent actively opt out and the remaining roughly 5 percent fail to respond. Supporters said many nonresponses reflect families with low engagement or unstable home life and that those students are among the most vulnerable.

Teachers and health professionals described operational problems under the opt‑in policy. Brian Wallace, vice president of the Nevada State Education Association, read a teacher statement that said students have been excluded because permission forms were not returned or were not submitted in time, delaying access to required units. Tess Opperman of Washoe County School District said most Washoe parents opt in at registration (about 98.3 percent) but roughly 0.7 percent of students arrive after registration and lack timely paperwork.

Opponents framed the bill as an erosion of parental rights and urged the committee to keep the state’s longstanding opt‑in model. Janine Hanson, state president of Nevada Families for Freedom, cited constitutional liberty interests and said academic studies do not definitively prove school sex‑education programs drove past national declines in teen pregnancy. Other speakers, including representatives of the Nevada Republican Party, Nevada Right to Life and groups calling for local control, urged maintaining active parental consent and local school board authority over curriculum.

Several witnesses on both sides urged that districts make curricula easily accessible online and notify parents in multiple ways. Assemblymember Golding said the bill does not change curriculum standards or who approves lesson content; it only alters enrollment mechanics and includes a requirement that districts notify parents annually and provide clear opt‑out instructions.

The committee did not take a final vote on AB 205 during the hearing. Sponsors and opponents provided written materials and oral testimony; the hearing record includes multiple requests for more comparative data about whether opt‑out laws in other states lead to different teen pregnancy or STI rates.

Why it matters: Supporters say AB 205 would reduce administrative barriers that keep some students from receiving age‑appropriate health information; opponents say it would reduce active parental control over sensitive instruction. The bill frames the change as a procedural enrollment shift while leaving curriculum decisions to local school boards.

What’s next: No formal action was recorded at the hearing. Committee members asked for additional data comparisons and clarification about district practices; sponsors said they would continue working with stakeholders on notification and transparency provisions.