Federal Bill Uses Old Fears to Try and Ban All LGBTQ+ Books and Programs in Schools
As a queer mom who started my family via assisted reproduction in a doctor's office, I'm tired of my son being exposed at school to stories of heterosexual families, most of whom were created via sexual intercourse. I'm uncomfortable having conversations with him about sex yet, and I don't want him to end up in therapy for being exposed to such topics at a tender age.
Ridiculous? Yes (and to be clear, satire). But that's the attitude, in reverse, that some people have towards LGBTQ+ people: that talking about us requires talking about sex. That false viewpoint, furthermore, is driving a federal bill that would ban books, activities, and programs that mention trans people—and potentially all LGBTQ+ people—from K-12 public schools nationwide.
U.S. Representative Mary Miller (R-IL) and 17 Republican colleagues introduced the "Stop the Sexualization of Children Act" (H. R. 7661) on February 24. If passed, the legislation would prohibit public schools from using federal funds "to develop, implement, facilitate, host, or promote any program or activity for, or to provide or promote literature or other materials to, children under the age of 18 that includes sexually oriented material," including material with "nude adults, individuals who are stripping, or lewd or lascivious dancing."
"Sexually oriented material" is further defined as that which contains "any depiction, description, or simulation of sexually explicit conduct"—or that involves "gender dysphoria or transgenderism." And since almost every public school receives federal funds of some type, the legislation would impact almost every public school.
Equating the mere mention of trans people with sexually oriented content is offensive and wrong. And while books and programs with trans representation are the most obvious target of this legislation, the impact will likely be much wider. For starters, the bill's reference to "lewd or lascivious dancing" seems intended to be a reference to drag performances and drag storytimes—even though such events for children, unlike some for adults, are not lewd or lascivious.
Additionally, the bill could pressure schools to remove books or programs with any type of LGBTQ+ representation for fear of how they might be perceived. One need only look at last year's U.S. Supreme Court case Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which several parents successfully sought the right to opt out their children before LGBTQ+-inclusive books were read in public school classrooms. The plaintiffs implied in court filings that such books had a sexual, even kinky, nature—claims that Justice Neil Gorsuch repeated during the hearings, but that have no basis in fact.
Such accusations have a long history. Two early LGBTQ+-inclusive picture books, "Heather Has Two Mommies," by Lesléa Newman, and "Daddy's Roommate," by Michael Willhoite, were suggested readings in the New York City Public Schools "Rainbow Curriculum" in the early 1990s, created to teach first-graders respect for all. In response, Mary Cummins, president of a school district in Queens, said in a 1992 "60 Minutes" interview that she "will not expand her curriculum to include materials that promote sodomy." Neither book, of course, contains anything sexual.
Despite the trans-targeted language of the new bill, then, the broad language about keeping sexual content from children, along with the fact that LGBTQ+-inclusive content has been incorrectly sexualized for decades, could be enough to scare schools into removing all LGBTQ+ materials and programs, including not only books, but also support groups for LGBTQ+ students and allies.
Let's be clear: There is indeed sexual content that is not appropriate for children (although this varies by age, a nuance the bill does not recognize). But the mere inclusion of trans or other LGBTQ+ people does not make content sexual.
The bill does make exceptions for "standard science coursework" and classic texts of literature, art, and religion—but it defines the literature exceptions based on a nearly 40-year-old list published by Encyclopaedia Britannica, which skews heavily White and male, and on several lists developed for Christian homeschoolers by Compass Classroom, a company whose "Statement of Faith" includes an assertion of Biblical inerrancy.
Will the bill pass? It's unclear at this point, but these days, it's hard to rule out anything entirely, especially since it's indicative of ongoing, misinformed attitudes. In another recent example, Pixar Chief Creative Officer Pete Docter told the Wall Street Journal (3/6/2026) that the company removed content from its 2025 movie "Elio" that indicated the protagonist was gay. The paper reported, "Docter said Pixar found some parents didn't want entertainment to force them to have a conversation they weren't ready for with their children. 'We're making a movie, not hundreds of millions of dollars of therapy,' he said."
What exactly aren't they ready to discuss or that would send children to therapy? Children of LGBTQ+ parents typically know about LGBTQ+ identities from very early ages, and decades of research shows they are as well-adjusted as any others. And again, more LGBTQ+ families are created without sex than cishet families (though there are exceptions on both sides), so what exactly is the problem here?
As I've said many times before, banning books and programs with LGBTQ+ representation sends the message to LGBTQ+ children and those with LGBTQ+ parents that they can't talk about themselves or their families. It tells them that they and their families don't matter. This bill isn't about protecting children from sexual content. It's about promoting a dangerous, narrow worldview that doesn't have LGBTQ+ people in it. Please contact your members of Congress today and ask them to oppose it.
Dana Rudolph is the founder and publisher of Mombian (mombian.com), a two-time GLAAD Media Award-winning blog for LGBTQ+ parents, plus a searchable database of 1,900+ LGBTQ+ family books.