Committee hears HB246, a bill to restrict use of names and pronouns inconsistent with legal name or biological sex

Representative Stadhagen described House Bill 246 as a measure that would prohibit public school and public higher‑education employees from using names and pronouns inconsistent with a student’s legal name or biological sex without written parental permission. "That is it in a nutshell," the sponsor said.

Public comment included educators, students, medical professionals and advocacy groups. Opponents argued the bill would create administrative burdens and legal risks for teachers and institutions. Dr. Paige Gant, a university instructor, said she had not encountered cases in eight years of teaching that would have required such a law and warned it could expose teachers to unnecessary lawsuits. "This bill is a solution in search of a problem," she told the committee.

Speakers highlighted practical issues such as nicknames and students who use anglicized names for ease of pronunciation; opponents said requiring parental permission slips would be an unnecessary burden and could place privacy‑sensitive students at risk. One commenter noted that a student who goes by an English nickname would be prevented from being addressed by that name unless a permission slip was on file.

Proponents argued the bill protects staff and students who object to using a name or pronoun they believe is inaccurate. Matt Sharp of Alliance Defending Freedom and John Idzmo of the Foundation for Moral Law argued that the First Amendment protects employees from being compelled to speak words they believe are false, and they cited cases in other jurisdictions where teachers or professors faced discipline for refusing to use preferred pronouns.

Several opponents also raised equity and safety concerns: students already face burdens of paperwork and teachers have many responsibilities; adding a permission slip system could complicate classroom management. Representative Stadhagen said he would prepare a substitute and asked the committee to consider it at the next meeting.

Why it matters: HB 246 would affect classroom interactions and campus visits at public K‑12 schools and public higher‑education institutions. Opponents say it creates administrative burdens and privacy risks for students; proponents frame it as protecting employee conscience rights and parental authority.

Next steps: the sponsor said he will file a substitute and the committee will take up the bill at a subsequent meeting.