The Fight for Family: 16 Proposed Ballot Initiatives Seek to Alter Laws on Life, Marriage & Biological Reality

Four amendments rejecting life & biological reality have already failed to gain traction, but voters in 11 states may face up to 16 ballot initiatives on these vital issues in the 2026 General Election*

1. Reviewing our state tracker and “Take Action” options below.
2. Watching our training video, produced in partnership with the Leadership Institute, on how to defeat abortion amendments. CLICK HERE TO WATCH NOW.
3. Sharing this information on social media.
4. Praying that the truth and life-affirming measures are victorious and that others are defeated, that the Lord changes hearts and minds (2 Corinthians 3:16), and that we as a nation would humble ourselves according to 2 Chronicles 7:14: “If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” To join with others in prayer, see Liberty Counsel’s Prayer Network.

*There are three ballot initiatives in Alabama outside of these issue areas that Liberty Counsel Action likewise urges support for: the School District Consolidation Process Amendment, the Require Pledge of Allegiance and Allow Student-Led Prayer in Public Schools Amendment, and the Broadcast The Star-Spangled Banner in Public Schools Amendment. If your state has an amendment that you think Liberty Counsel Action should be supporting, please email [email protected]!

State Tracker: At a Glance Overview
Overview of the Initial 20 Possible Ballot Initiatives Across 13 States

*Note: Maine and Washington have “indirect“ initiatives, meaning the Legislature has the opportunity to approve said initiatives before they go to voters. In ME and WA, it is highly unlikely the Democrat-controlled legislatures will approve the initiatives; hence it is likely they will go before voters if enough signatures are verified.

Arizona: Protect Girls’ Sports Statutory Amendment

Colorado: 2 Statutory Amendments Promoting Biological Truth

Hawaii: Pro-Abortion Amendment to the State Constitution

1. Choose to obtain an abortion of a nonviable fetus; and
2. Choose to obtain or use contraceptives?”

• Permit abortion up to birth for virtually any reason.
  • Specifically, the language establishes a right to abortion for “a nonviable fetus” and allows abortion when “necessary to protect the life or health of the parent.”
  • Given “nonviable” is not defined, abortions could extend well into the third trimester and for any reason. (Note: While current law defines “nonviable fetus” as “a fetus that does not have a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival outside of the uterus,” this is subjective – for example, it is unclear whether this encompasses a fetus that would have a reasonable likelihood of survival with medical care.)
  • Given “health” is not defined, it is likely to encompass “mental health” which essentially permits abortion to birth for any reason.
• Could permit infanticide by neglect, given any requirement that an abortion provider have life-saving medical equipment on hand to provide care to an infant who survived an abortion would be considered “interfering” with the “right” to abortion.
• Place the health and safety of women at risk as it would make critical, common-sense health and safety rules unconstitutional (specifically the language states the state cannot “deny or interfere” in the decision to abort, and, as any health and safety rule technically “interferes” with abortion, they would not be permitted). This would:
  • Remove the requirement for a licensed physician or surgeon to be involved in an abortion.
  • Prevent future legislatures from passing practical health and safety measures, such as requiring informed consent or requiring ultrasounds to determine the gestation of the pregnancy.
• (Likely) Make it easier for sex-traffickers and abusers to cover up their crimes given the state cannot “deny or interfere” in the decision to abort (hence, any state action to “ interfere” with an abortion, such as measures seeking to detect coerced abortion, would be prohibited).
• Trample on parental rights by prohibiting parental consent and notification (while girls as young as 14 are already allowed to consent for an abortion without parental involvement under current law, the use of the word “individual” instead of “adult” will not only enshrine this law but permit girls even younger to access abortion without parental knowledge).
• (Likely) permit transgender mutilating surgeries for minors and other sex-rejecting “hormone treatments.”
  • As noted above, used of the word “individual” would include minors.
  • Given “reproductive freedom” is not defined, it can be interpreted to include decisions that alter the body's reproductive functions.
  • Any laws seeking to prohibit (or at least require parental involvement) sex-rejecting surgeries and other “treatments” for minors would therefore be considered denying or interfering “with an individual's reproductive freedom.”
• (Likely) create a “right” to in-vitro fertilization and other controversial and harmful assisted reproductive technologies (such as surrogacy), given the state cannot deny or interfere “with an individual's reproductive freedom.”
• (Likely) maintain taxpayer funding of abortion and potentially require it for other “reproductive health care,” such as ARTs and sex-rejecting surgeries.
• Create an explicit right to contraception.

• Introduced as a legislatively referred Constitutional Amendment in 2025; it was carried over to the 2026 legislative session and did not move forward.

Idaho: Pro-Abortion Amendment to State Statute

Maine: “Protect Girls’ Sports” Amendment to State Statute

• For males/boys/men, “restricted to students whose sex is male.”
• For females/girls/women, “restricted to students whose sex is female.”
• Coeducational or mixed, open to males and females.

• It ensures compliance with Title IX.
• The text makes an exception for a female to play on a male team “if no athletic team designated for females . . . is available in that sport.”
• The bill protects private spaces (“restrooms, locker rooms, shower rooms and other private spaces”) by prohibiting a member of one sex to use a facility designated for another sex.
• In addition to outlining that the bill does not “constitute unlawful discrimination,” the Maine Secretary of State outlined that for those with disabilities “The initiated bill provides that an individual born with a biologically verifiable disorder or difference in sex development must receive all legal protections and accommodations afforded under federal law.”
• The main enforcement mechanism is permitting “a student who is deprived of an athletic opportunity or suffers direct injury because of a violation of a provision of the initiated bill” to bring a civil action against the school or entity in violation.

• Submitted as an (citizens) indirect initiated state statute; approved for signature gathering in Nov. 2025.
• The ballot initiative was originally fully qualified and headed to voters. On May 25, 2026, the Maine Secretary of State determined there were not enough valid signatures for the measure to be placed on the ballot. Protect Girls Sports Maine plans to appeal; they have ten days to do so.
• If the measure makes it to the ballot, a simple majority vote is required for it to become law.

• Join the efforts of Protect Girls’ Sports in Maine with opportunities to volunteer to collect signatures and more!
• Get involved with the Christian Civic League of Maine!

Missouri: 3 Initial Amendments — 2 will NOT be on the ballot!

1. “Amendment 3”: Repeal Pro-Abortion Constitutional Amendment & Replace with Pro-Life Amendment

• Repeal the 2024 voter-approved Amendment providing reproductive healthcare rights, including abortion through fetal viability;
• Allow abortions for rape and incest (under twelve-weeks’ gestation), emergencies, and fetal anomalies;
• Allow legislation regulating abortion;
• Ensure parental consent for minors’ abortions;
• Prohibit gender transition procedures for minors?

• Repealing the “reproductive freedom” constitutional amendment that voters ratified in 2024. (The current language in the Missouri Constitution provides a “fundamental right” to abortion, permitting abortion up until birth for virtually any reason.)
• Prohibiting abortion and public funding for the same except in cases of medical emergency, fetal anomaly, or in cases of rape and incest prior to 12 weeks gestation.
• Prohibiting the harvest of fetal body parts.
• Prohibiting gender transition surgery or related “care” for minors.
• As outlined by the MO Right to Life PAC, “Ensure accurate medical information regarding abortion is given to women” and “standard of safety guidelines are in place for abortions.”

• As a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, approved by the Legislature for the ballot in 2025, this amendment will be on the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot.
• A simple majority vote is required for it to become law.

• Plug into with Missouri’s Right To Life PAC, with multiple ways you can volunteer, from distributing yard signs to writing opinion editorials!
• Get involved with Her Health, Her Future, the official campaign of the first lady of Missouri promoting a YES vote on Amendment 3 in 2026.
• Get Connected with MO Protects, also seeking to pass Amendment 3.

2. The “Marriage Regardless of Gender” Constitutional Amendment

• From “A valid marriage in the state of Missouri shall exist only between a man and a woman:”
• To “the right to marry is a fundamental right for any two consenting adults . . . All such marriages are valid and recognized in this state?”

• Repealing language defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
• Adding language stating that “the right to marry is a fundamental right for any two consenting adults. All such marriages are valid and recognized in this state.”

• Submitted as an (citizens) initiated constitutional amendment; approved for signature gathering in Feb. 2025.
• The campaign stopped collecting signatures. As the deadline for submitting signatures has passed, it won’t be on the ballot.

3. The “Discrimination Protections Related to Sexual Orientation, Marital Status, Pregnancy, and Gender Identity Measure”

• Adding definitions for “sexual orientation,” “marital status,” “pregnancy,” and “gender identity,” and
• Prohibiting “discrimination” in housing, employment, and public accommodation on the same.

• It may require employers to provide insurance coverage for transgender affirming “care.”
• It would require business owners to allow biological males who identify as female in female restrooms, locker rooms, or other female-only private spaces.
• It allows biological males who identify as women to access female-only public accommodations, such as women's shelters and female-only prisons.

• Submitted as a citizens initiated state statute; approved for signature gathering in Feb. 2025.
• The campaign stopped collecting signatures. As the deadline for submitting signatures has passed, it won’t be on the ballot.

Nebraska: "Fairness for Girls" ("Protect Girls’ Sports”) Constitutional Amendment

• The proposed language requires athletic teams to “be expressly designated” based on biology as for either males, females, or both (co-ed).
• It applies to "interscholastic, intercollegiate, and intramural athletic teams or sports that are sponsored by a common school of this state, a public postsecondary educational institution of this state, or any school or institution of learning in this state not owned or exclusively controlled by the state or a political subdivision thereof whose athletic teams or sports compete against a common school or public postsecondary educational institution of this state."
• While not explicit, by implication it would protect girls from male invasion of locker rooms and bathrooms used by athletics' teams.

• Submitted January 2026 as a citizens initiated constitutional amendment.
• It needs to collect valid signatures “equal to 10% of registered voters at the signature deadline. Nebraska also has a distribution requirement that requires initiative proponents to collect signatures from 5% of the registered voters in two-fifths (38) of Nebraska's 93 counties."
• If placed on the ballot, it will become law via a simple majority vote (caveat: “the number of affirmative votes cast for the measure must be greater than 35% of the total votes cast in the election”).

Nevada: 2 Constitutional Amendments, 1 “Protect Girls' Sports,” 1 Pro-Abortion

Article 1 Section 24 of the Nevada Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 1. Equality of Rights:

Except as otherwise set forth subsection 2, equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this State or any of its political subdivisions on account of race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry or national origin.

2. The State and its political subdivisions shall designate athletic participation in all athletic competitions, including team sports, as one of the following based on biological sex at birth: (a) for males, men, or boys; (b) for females, women, or girls; or (c) coeducational or mixed-sex. This subsection applies to all recipients of State funds who operate, sponsor, or facilitate athletic programs or activities. An athletic team or sport designated for biological females, women, or girls shall not be open to biological males. A female may participate in a sport or on a team designated for males if no corresponding team for females is available.

3. As used in subsection 2 of this Act:

(a) “Sex”, “biological male”, “biological female”, or “biological sex” refers to an individual’s biological status as either male or female based on the individual’s birth certificate issued at the time of birth. For the purposes of this Section, “sex” is not synonymous with gender identity or gender expression; and

(b) “Female”, “woman”, and “girl” refer to an individual of the human female sex. The term “sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity.”

4. If any part of this Act be declared invalid, or the application thereof to any person, thing, or circumstance is held invalid, then such validity shall not affect the remaining provisions or application of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are declared to be severable. This subsection shall be construed broadly to preserve and effectuate the declared purpose of this Act.

5. This Act shall become effective upon passage and approval by the voters and upon completion of the canvass of votes by the Supreme Court.

2. Pro-Abortion Constitutional Amendment

• Prohibiting parental notification and consent (which just recently became enforceable).
• Placing the health and safety of woman at risk (given the subjective nature of determining a “compelling state interest,” which is the only way “the right established by this section” can be “burdened” state and local governments will most likely be unable to enforce common-sense regulations). More specifically, this will likely lead to:
  • A lack of regulation for abortion clinics.
  • Permitting unqualified healthcare practitioners to provide abortions (while abortions are to be “performed or administered by a qualified health care practitioner,” “qualified” is not defined; hence, ironically, the language could include practitioners that lack proper abortion training, e.g. a chiropractor).
  • Making it easier for sex-traffickers and abusers to cover up their crimes (While currently Nevada abortion law lacks effective coercion detection measures, there are at least some protections, such as informed consent. This would make future legislation on the same nearly impossible, ensuring Nevada’s current status as a “magnet” for sex traffickers, predators, and abusers continues.)
• Possibly permitting infanticide (by neglect).
  • The language states, “All individuals shall have a fundamental right to abortion performed or administered by a qualified health care practitioner until fetal viability,” where “fetal viability” is subjectively defined as “in the professional judgment of the patient's treating health care practitioner, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.” Given “extraordinary medical measures” are not defined, requiring life-saving equipment to be available for any infants aborted around the point of “viability” would more than likely be considered a “burden” on abortion access.
  • In other words: though a 22-week old baby can survive outside the womb, this law would let that baby die. The same could be true for latter term abortions, depending on what a judge determines to be a “burden.”
• Requiring taxpayer funded abortion (while Nevada taxpayers currently fund abortion via Medicaid, a future legislature would more than likely be unable to change this, given the proposed constitutional “right” to abortion would be considered “fundamental”).

• Submitted as an (citizens) initiated constitutional amendment in 2023; approved by voters (64.36%) in the 2024 general election.
• Voters will have a second chance to vote on the language on Nov. 3, 2026.
• It will become law after a simple majority vote.

Ohio: 2 Constitutional Amendments, 1 on “Equal Rights”, 1 Pro-Same-Sex Marriage

• Provide that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the State of Ohio or its political subdivisions on account of race, color, creed or religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression regardless of sex assigned at birth, pregnancy status, genetic information, disease status, age, disability, recovery status, familial status, ancestry, national origin, or military and veteran status.
• Prohibit the state and its political subdivisions from enacting or enforcing any law, statute, or regulation that abridges or denies the rights of individuals on any of the grounds listed above, including but not limited to rights in education, employment, housing, healthcare services and health insurance, public spaces and accommodations, state records, and legal identification.
• Provide that no provision in the section shall be interpreted or applied in a way that prevents the adoption or implementation of measures intended to provide equality of treatment and opportunity for members of groups which are commonly marginalized or have historically been subject to discrimination.
• Provide that the section shall be self-executing and be liberally construed in favor of its purpose, and that if any part is held invalid, the remainder shall continue in full force and effect.”

• Permit abortion on demand and up to birth.
  • While Ohio’s Constitution already has a “right” to abortion up to the point of viability and beyond in cases where the mother’s health is at risk, the ERA, by stating no law can abridge or deny rights on account of “pregnancy status,” would expand this to allow abortion up to birth for virtually any reason. For example: even if the “status” of the pregnancy is 37, 38, 39 weeks, that would not be a permissible reason to abridge or deny the “right” to an abortion.
• Place the health and safety of woman at risk as no law would be allowed to “abridge” the right to make decisions on healthcare, including abortion.
  • Specifically, while current constitutional language allows the state to interfere with or burden the “right” to abortion if it can demonstrate “that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the individual's health in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care,” this exception is not found in the ERA language, meaning critical health and safety measures would not be allowed, such as coercion detection measures.
• Enshrine same-sex marriage in constitutional law, effectively nullifying the current constitutional provision defining marriage between one man and one woman by stating no law can abridge or deny rights on account of “sexual orientation.”
• Create a “right” to transgender affirming “care,” including for minors (as “health care services” are not defined, they could include mutilating surgeries and sex-rejecting “treatments;” furthermore, “individuals” would include minors — indeed this is the intent).
• Threaten parental rights, given it may:
  • Prohibit parental consent or notification requirements for minors seeking abortion or transgender mutilating “care” (as there are no explicit references to limitations based on age).
  • Place parents at risk of losing custody of their minor child if they do not agree with their child's decision to socially and/or medically reject their sex (“transition genders”).
• Give biological males identifying as female would the “right” to access female-only facilities (bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.) at restaurants, stores, gyms, and other businesses open to the public (based on language that states the “rights” of “individuals” in “public spaces and accommodations” cannot be abridged based on gender identity or expression).
• Give biological males identifying as female the “right” to participate in female sports.
• Permit infanticide by neglect as requiring life-saving medical care to be on hand and provided to any baby born alive as a result of a failed abortion could be considered to “abridge” ones “right” to an abortion.
• May lead to taxpayer funded abortion.
• Further entrench the current constitutional “right” to fertility treatments, like IVF (as “health care services” are not defined they are likely to include fertility treatments, which cannot be abridged based on sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disease status).
• May also infringe on the freedoms of religion and speech given there are no conscience protections outlined. For example, as abortion, gender “transitions,” and same sex marriage would be constitutional “rights”:
  • A clergyman may be required to perform a same-sex marriage, or prohibited from providing counselling to gender-confused individuals.
  • Medical professionals may be compelled to prescribe puberty-blockers or perform abortions against sincerely held religious beliefs.

Oregon: “Equal Rights” Constitutional Amendment

Vermont “Equal Rights” Constitutional Amendment

• (Further) enshrining same-sex marriage in the Constitution (the language states “equal treatment under the law” cannot be denied on account of a person’s “sexual orientation, gender identity,” or “gender expression;” “equal treatment” in regard to marriage could require allowing same-sex couples to marry, reinforcing the current constitutional interpretation requiring same-sex couples be provided equal treatment.)*
• Doubling down on current constitutional language that opened the door to creating a right to transgender affirming “care,” including for minors.
  • Current constitutional language states: “That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy . . . shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” Use of the word “individual” means minors may be included, and given “reproductive autonomy” is not defined, it likely includes sex-rejecting surgeries and “treatments.”
  • Proposed language states “equal treatment under the law” cannot be denied on account of a “person’s” “gender identity” or “expression.” Use of the word “persons” (like “individuals”) means the provision may apply to minors, given there are no age limitations specified, and “equal treatment” could require transgender identifying individuals to receive the same level of “affirming care” and health care coverage that heterosexuals receive.
• Threatening parental rights, given it may:
  • Double down on current constitutional language that may prohibit parental consent or notification requirements for minors seeking transgender mutilating “care” (again, language of “person’s” likely includes minors as age is not referenced).
  • Place parents at greater risk of losing custody of their minor child if they do not agree with their child's decision to socially and/or medically reject their sex (“transition genders”).

(Again, the broad nature of the current constitutional language may already encompass the above two points. For example, a parent seeking to protect their child from mutilating surgery could be considered and “infringement” or “denial” of that individual’s (minors) “right” to freely choose to change their reproductive organs.)

• Allowing biological males identifying as female the “right” to play on female sports teams and access female-only private spaces and female-only public accommodations, including bathrooms, locker rooms, women’s shelters, and more. (“Equal treatment under the law” based on gender identity would allow transgender individuals to access the private facilities of the gender they “identify” with.)
• Doubling down on current constitutional language that essentially made assisted reproductive technologies (ART), like in vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy, “rights,” including for LGBT-identifying individuals.
  • Current constitutional language stating, “an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy . . . shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means,” opens the door to making ART a “right” as said technologies are related to reproduction.
  • New language outlining “Equal treatment under the law on account of . . . sexual orientation, gender identity,” or “gender expression” could be interpreted to allow any LGBT individual/couple receive the same treatment(s) as a heterosexual individual/couple, and therefore they could claim they have a right to access assisted reproductive technologies/reproduce.
• Infringing on the freedoms of religion and speech, given that there are no conscience protections outlined. For example, as gender “transitions” and same sex marriage would be constitutional “rights”:
  • A clergyman may be required to perform a same-sex marriage or prohibited from counselling gender-confused individuals.
  • Medical professionals may be compelled to prescribe puberty-blockers or refer for gender-transition surgeries against sincerely held religious beliefs.

• Passed the Vermont legislature as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in 2024.
• Required a simple majority vote in the VT House and Senate in the second legislative session. It passed the Senate unanimously and passed the Houe 128 to 14. It now goes directly to voters.
• It will become law via a simple majority vote.

Virginia: 2 Constitutional Amendments, 1 Pro-Abortion, 1 Pro-Same-Sex Marriage

• Permit abortion up to birth for any reason.
• Permit infanticide by neglect, based on:
  • Language that prohibits prosecution based on “pregnancy outcomes,” one of which could be an infant born alive from a failed abortion who dies by lack of adequate care.
  • Language that says an individual's “right” to abortion shall not be “burdened” unless there is a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means (given the subjective nature of determining a “compelling state interest” and “least restrictive means,” state and local governments will most likely be unable to enforce common-sense regulations like requiring abortion providers to have life-saving medical equipment on hand and administered to any babies that survive abortions).
• Create a “right” to transgender mutilating surgeries, including for minors.
• Trample on parental rights, with no parental notification required for any of the above.
• Place the health and safety of woman at risk as it would make critical, common-sense health and safety rules unenforceable. (Specifically the language states “a state interest is compelling only if it is for the limited purpose of maintaining or improving the health of an individual seeking care, consistent with accepted clinical standards of care and evidence-based medicine, and does not infringe on that individual's autonomous decision making;” however, it is almost certain that the abortion industry would decide “acceptable standards of care” and decide what is “evidence based.”)
• Make it easier for sex-traffickers and abusers to cover up their crimes (based on language that states “The Commonwealth shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against any individual for aiding or assisting another individual in exercising such other individual's right to reproductive freedom with such other individual's voluntary consent” given “voluntary consent” can be forged.)
• Create a “right” to fertility care, including IVF and surrogacy, as well as allowing, per the Virginia Family Foundation, “the unregulated sale and purchase of human embryos, and unethical research, commodifying human beings and leading to the exploitation of women.”
• Open the door to require taxpayer funding for all of the above.

• The legislatively referred constitutional amendment was passed by both the VA House and Senate in 2025 and 2026.
• It may be removed from the ballot, pending a legal challenge by Liberty Counsel.
• If it remains on the ballot, it will become law via a simple majority vote.

• Puts clergy at risk, as no conscience (religious or otherwise) objections are outlined.
• Enshrines gender ideology into the state constitution by distinguishing between sex and gender.
  • As outlined by the Virginia Family Foundation (VFF), this pressures “schools, businesses, and government to adopt policies that conflict with biological reality.”
  • For example, it would threaten girls' safety and sports.
• As also outlined by the VFF, it promotes societal breakdown by eliminating “language that emphasizes the benefits and obligations of marriage that are important to children, family-building and stable communities.”

• The legislatively referred constitutional amendment was passed by both the VA House and Senate in 2025 and 2026.
• It will become law via a simple majority vote.

Washington: 2 Statutory Amendments - 1 Protect Girls' Sports, 1 Promoting Parent's Rights

• Biological male students would be prohibited from competing in female sports. (Specifically, “Policies, procedures, rules, and other requirements adopted in accordance with RCW 28A.600.200 by a school district board of directors or a voluntary nonprofit entity must prohibit biologically male students from competing with and against female students in athletic activities with separate classifications for male and female students if the activity is (a) Intended for female students only; and (b) An individual or team competition activity.”)
• Verification of the student's biological sex is included as part of the currently required routine sports physical examination.
• Title IX is adhered to, as outlined by the group organizing the initiative, “Let’s Go Washington.”

• Submitted June 2025 as a (citizens) indirect initiated state statute and approved for signature gathering.
• The Secretary of State completed and certified signature verification on January 22, 2026.
• The Legislature did not act on it, so it will go directly to voters.
• It will become law via a simple majority vote.

• Join the fight by volunteering with Let’s Go Washington!
• You can also join the fight by volunteering with Family Policy Institute of Washington Action!

2. Washington: “Strengthen Communication Between Parents and Schools” (Parents’ Bill of Rights) Amendment to State Statute

• Make clear that parents of public school children have certain rights, “including rights to review materials and student records, receive certain notifications and opt students out of certain activities.” These specifically include the right to:
  • Request and receive within 10 days any medical or health records held by the school. This includes any records related to mental health, such as those related to a child’s “gender identity,” as well as records related to pregnancy and abortion (under the legislature’s changes, health and medical records were not necessarily included in those that would be released by the school and, even if some were, the time frame for receiving these records is 45 days).
  • Opt their child out of “surveys, assignments, questionnaires, role-playing activities, recordings of their child, or other student engagements that include questions about ... the child's sexual experiences or attractions.”
  • Opt their child out of “instruction on topics associated with sexual activity” (in accordance with current law). Currently, the state of Washington requires sexual education and specifies that, “abstinence may not be taught to the exclusion of other materials and instruction on contraceptives and disease prevention.”
• Repeal amendments to state statute that had “modified school obligations and access to certain student records.”

Of note, in defending the changes to this law made by Democrat-led legislature, the Democrat Senate Majority Leader said: “Parents don’t have a right to have notice, they don’t have a right to have consent about” their child’s health care decisions — like abortion and LGBT affirming mental health services.

• Submitted May 2025 as a (citizens) indirect initiated state statute and approved for signature gathering.
• The Secretary of State completed and certified signature verification on January 26, 2026.
• The Legislature  did not act on it so it will go directly to voters.
• It will become law via a simple majority vote.