AN ACT relating to human growth and development instruction.
HB397 would revise Kentucky law governing instruction on human sexuality and sexually transmitted diseases in public schools, and it would add a new requirement that districts provide instruction on human growth and development for students in grade six and above. The bill states that if a district offers sexuality or STD-related instruction, it must emphasize abstinence, monogamous relationships, and parental rights, including a prohibition on instruction for children in grade five and below and a restriction on any instruction or presentation aimed at studying or exploring gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation. It also requires written parental consent before a student in grade six or above may participate in such instruction.
The bill further requires schools to include specific fetal-development materials in the human growth and development curriculum, including a high-definition ultrasound video and a computer-generated rendering or animation showing fertilization and development through birth. It also requires schools to provide an alternative course or program for students whose parents do not consent, and to allow parents to inspect curriculum materials, lesson plans, assessments, surveys, assignments, and instructional activities. Schools must give parents at least two weeks' written notice before participation begins and provide information on how to review materials and give consent.
In terms of state law, HB397 would amend KRS 158.1415 and expand the statutory requirements for public school health instruction. It would impose new parental notification, consent, and inspection obligations on school districts, while also limiting the scope of sexuality-related instruction for younger students and restricting certain content related to gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. The bill also preserves classroom discussion and student-question responses when they are tied to approved curriculum topics.
Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, there is no formal legislative record here showing support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to strengthen parental control and add pro-life-oriented instructional content, which suggests support from advocates of parental rights and fetal development education. At the same time, the restrictions on LGBTQ-related instruction and the consent requirements would likely be contentious for educators, civil liberties advocates, and supporters of inclusive sex education.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s limits on instruction involving gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation; the requirement for written parental consent; and the mandated fetal-development presentation. Supporters would likely view these provisions as protecting parental rights and ensuring age-appropriate instruction, while opponents may argue that the bill narrows educational content, complicates classroom instruction, and could exclude or stigmatize LGBTQ students and topics.
HB397 would amend KRS 158.1415 to add detailed parental consent, notification, and inspection requirements for school instruction on human sexuality and sexually transmitted diseases, while also requiring a new human growth and development curriculum for grade six and above. It would affect public school districts, administrators, teachers, parents, and students by limiting certain instruction for younger grades, restricting content related to gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation, and mandating fetal-development instructional materials. The bill would also require districts to offer alternative instruction without penalty when parents do not consent.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment in the materials beyond the bill text itself. The bill’s structure suggests it is intended to appeal to supporters of parental rights, abstinence-focused sex education, and fetal development instruction. At the same time, its restrictions on LGBTQ-related content and its consent requirements are likely to draw opposition from educators and advocates of comprehensive sex education.
The most notable points of contention are the bill’s prohibition on instruction for grades five and below, its ban on any instruction or presentation with the goal of exploring gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation, and its requirement for written parental consent before participation in sexuality-related instruction. Supporters are likely to argue these provisions protect parental authority and age-appropriate education, while opponents are likely to object that they restrict curriculum, burden schools administratively, and may marginalize LGBTQ topics and students. The mandated ultrasound and fetal-development animation may also be controversial because of its pro-life framing and its role in classroom instruction.