Editor’s note: AB205 passed the Legislature on party lines with Republicans opposed and, at publication time, is awaiting a signature or veto from Gov. Joe Lombardo.

Should the 90 percent of Nevada parents who support sex education have to jump through hoops simply to ensure their children receive it? That’s the reality under our current opt-in policy, which creates unnecessary barriers to critical health education. AB205 offers a simple fix: Switch to an opt-out system to ensure all students receive necessary evidence-based instruction unless a parent actively withdraws them. 

Sexual health education equips young people with the knowledge they need to make informed, healthy decisions. Research consistently shows that sexual health education reduces rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), while improving overall reproductive health outcomes. Yet, Nevada remains one of only four states that require parents to sign a permission slip just to allow their children to access this information​.

Under the current system, 5 percent to 8 percent of students never return the opt-in form. Thousands of young people, many of whom come from underserved backgrounds, are left without crucial education​. This disproportionately affects foster youth and those experiencing homelessness, many of whom lack engaged parental figures to advocate for them. In contrast, an opt-out system would ensure that sexual health education is the default, while still fully respecting parental rights to review materials and withdraw their children if they choose.

The stakes are high. STIs are surging among Nevada’s youth and teen pregnancy continues to have devastating consequences. Untreated STIs such as chlamydia and gonorrhea can lead to infertility, chronic pain and increased HIV risk​. Teen pregnancy dramatically limits economic opportunities. Only 50 percent of teen mothers graduate high school and their children face higher risks of poverty, poor health and incarceration​.

Sexual health education does more than reduce teen pregnancies and STIs, it empowers youth to recognize unhealthy power dynamics in relationships and make informed decisions about their bodies. This knowledge equips students with tools to protect their health and safety in digital and physical spaces.

Opponents of AB205 argue that an opt-in system gives parents more control. But under both policies, parents retain the right to review curriculum and make decisions for their children. What an opt-out policy does is eliminate the barrier that prevents students, particularly the most vulnerable, from accessing education they have a right to receive​.

Moreover, data shows that very few parents actually opt their children out of sex education when given the option. In Clark County, only 1 percent of high school students were opted out by their parents, while another 5-8 percent missed out on this education simply because the form was never turned in. AB205 ensures that these students whose parents may not be engaged, reachable or able to navigate the paperwork are not unfairly denied access to vital health information.

Passing AB205 is not about removing parental rights, but rather takes out unnecessary bureaucracy that keeps students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, from accessing life-saving education. Our policies should reflect the consensus of the majority while protecting the wishes of the minority. By choosing opt-out we uphold parental choice while still putting the best interest of our students first. It’s time that Nevada takes a step in the right direction and prioritize education, equity, and evidence-based policies such as this one.

Marianne Estrada is a medical student at Kirk Kerkorian School of Medicine at UNLV. She is involved in the American Medical Association, Nevada State Medical Association and Latino Medical Student Association.

Eileen Enriquez is a medical student at Kirk Kerkorian School of Medicine at UNLV and is involved in the American Medical Association, Nevada State Medical Association, Qlub Med and the Medical Students with Disabilities and Chronic Illness. 

The Nevada Independent welcomes informed, cogent rebuttals to opinion pieces such as this. They can be submitted here.