The State of Sex Education in the U.S.

Currently, there are no federal mandates for how and when sexual health education should be taught in K-12 schooling. States can require sex education and establish general guidelines, but ultimately, most decision-making regarding content, duration of instruction, and educator training falls to individual school districts. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 29 states and the District of Columbia (DC) mandate some form of sex education, and 32 states plus DC require HIV education as of 2025. 37% of all states require sexual health education to be medically accurate. 

Although they vary greatly, sex education programs can be generally classified into the following categories: abstinence-only, abstinence-plus, sexual risk avoidance, and comprehensive sex education (CSE). Both abstinence-only and abstinence-plus programs emphasize abstinence from non-marital sexual activity as the most effective method of prevention against pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). However, abstinence-only education withholds information on contraceptives, while abstinence-plus does not. Sexual risk avoidance education encourages students to refrain from non-marital sexual activity voluntarily, promoting personal responsibility and prevention of risk behaviors. The Title V State Sexual Risk Avoidance Education Grant Program provides funding to states that implement sexual risk avoidance education in their schools, also referred to as Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage (AOUM) programs. Lastly, comprehensive sex education equips students with skills and knowledge about safely engaging in sexual activity, incorporating lessons on critical thinking, consent, healthy relationships, and navigating gender and sexual identities.

The debate over sex education has escalated notably within the past year, with the nonprofit Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) tracking over 650 state bills related to sex education in 2025. Some surveys show growing concerns over the quality and effectiveness of the sexual health curriculum. Additionally, studies show that LGBTQ+ youth do not feel like their needs are addressed by AOUM programs.

What is the Real Education and Access for Healthy Youth Act?

The Real Education and Access for Healthy Youth Act (REAHYA) would provide federal grants for schools and institutions that either implement comprehensive sex education programs or train educators on that curriculum, while repealing the Title V AOUM programs. The legislation claims to prevent unwanted pregnancies, STIs, dating violence, sexual abuse, and harassment. There is no specification in the bill as to whether parents of students will be allowed to opt out of these programs.

REAHYA would require education and services to be culturally responsive to the experiences and needs of underserved youth, including, but not limited to, those who are people of color, LGBTQ+, living with HIV, or are from low-income households. Additional grants are available for institutions that will provide services to populations of underserved youth. Content that is administered under REAHYA would need to be inclusive, which is defined as ensuring underserved youth are respected, centered, and supported in sex education instruction. The bill would prohibit funding of any programs that are medically inaccurate or fail to adhere to the inclusivity of marginalized communities, or promote gender and racial stereotypes. 

Who Supports REAHYA?

Supporters of REAHYA believe that increased inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community, dismantling of gender stereotypes, and encouragement of sexuality exploration will have positive effects on the physical and emotional well-being of LGBTQ+ youth. Advocates highlight that LGBTQ+ youth disproportionately deal with harassment, intimidation, and bullying on a regular basis, and argue that a CSE curriculum would help mitigate those disparities. Research has linked the CSE curriculum to positive mental health outcomes and fewer reports of homophobic-related bullying for LGBTQ+ youth. When the feelings of exclusion or misrepresentation are absent, students are more likely to engage better with the content.

Second, supporters frequently cite studies that find that AOUM programs have poor efficacy in actually delaying sexual activity and reducing the number of sexual partners. Conversely, some studies have documented that CSE has greater success in delaying sexual initiation among teens and increasing the use of contraceptives, compared to AOUM education. They argue that sexual health education should be determined through an evidence-based approach and that more studies have highlighted the effectiveness of CSE. 

Advocates also note that CSE teaches critical skills and knowledge regarding obtaining and conveying consent, dealing with harassment, and understanding healthy relationships, which are missing from the AOUM curriculum. Additionally, research has shown that CSE can play a role in decreasing gender-based violence and serve as a mechanism for stronger reporting and support systems for victims. This would mean CSE can function as a prevention intervention for domestic violence. 

Who Opposes REAHYA?

Opponents of this bill believe that it undermines parental rights to determine how and when to deliver sensitive information related to sexual health. At the Waldorf School in Long Island, New York, parents became upset upon learning that their fifth-grade students saw illustrated depictions of masturbation as part of sexual health class content. This led some to believe that CSE can expose children to content at an age that parents feel is too early. Moreover, some argue that the emphasis on obtaining consent normalizes sexual activity, leading kids to believe that engaging in sexual activity is safe and acceptable. 

Those against the bill also argue that CSE involves a curriculum that often does not align with traditional family values, which infringes on parental responsibility to guide their children’s moral and religious upbringing. Some believe that CSE operates with the assumption that one will engage in sexual activity with multiple partners throughout their life, which conflicts with certain religious and cultural beliefs about long-term relationships and abstaining until marriage. 

Notably, the inclusion of LGBTQ individuals can also interfere with religious beliefs about sexuality and gender identity. Some argue this is an infringement of First Amendment religious freedom, citing the Supreme Court case Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), which ruled that if education impedes on parents’ ability to guide children’s religious development, then parents should be allowed to opt out of the program or content.

Conclusion

Advocates support REAHYA and its CSE curriculum because of its inclusivity towards LGBTQ+ youth, documented efficacy, and teachings of consent. On the other hand, opponents argue that the bill not only obstructs parents’ rights to raise their children the way they see fit, but also unconstitutionally violates the First Amendment freedom of religion.

Frequently Asked Questions