The administration for Children and Families recently sent a letter to state and local health departments across the United States, demanding that “all references to gender ideology” be removed from federally funded personal responsibility education programs for sex education. It is a disturbing move that reflects the Bush administration’s cut federal funding to states and schools that refused to teach abstinence-only sex education as part of a purely cultural movement.
Like the modern “non-gay” movement that has been made powerful by parents seeking to remove references to LGBTQ individuals from classrooms and libraries, abstinence-only sex education has proven to be deeply effective and harmful for children. These similarities are more impactful than ever, as they regulate the ability of sex education to teach in schools by withholding funds. This is the “non-gay” sex education version that shows modern anti-LGBTQ law is a new form of pure culture, bent on eliminating education as well as representatives regarding LGBTQ bodies.
Understanding this history is essential to oppose sex education and limits the arguments of trans, non-binary and queer people.
In the 1980s, Congress passed the Adolescent Family Life Law, or the “Chastity Law.” Title XX of the Public Health Services Act, this Act funded the program. $125 million so farit encouraged young people to practice “chastity.” Bowenv by ACLU. Following Kendrick, following the ACLU lawsuit, programs working from the AFLA were not permitted to utilize religious references or use the church as host space. Despite a 2004 report by Rep. Henry A. Waxman, the AFLA program also had to be medically accurate, despite finding that two-thirds of abstinence-only educational materials contained false information.
By 1996, Title V of the Welfare Reform Act had set up a new system of grants funding to states that provide abstinence-only sex education. Title V demanded that the federal funds received match the state funds. Contributed to the program It teaches that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.” Title V, followed by Title XI §1110 of the Social Security Act, providing grants to community-centric (faith-inclusive) organizations.
The funding often required educators not to teach young people (children aged 12-18 years olds were targeted by the program) about birth control or other safety practices. The program moved to power for children and families, later known as the community-based ascetic education program. In 2006 alone, $176 million was spent on state grants, and the new program released a new program that encourages educators to highlight traditional family values, including the explicit indication that “materials should not promote the use of any kind of birth control outside of marriage or refer to forms of protest.”
These programs were largely abolished by 2009, when President Barack Obama removed almost all funding for abstinence-only sex education, but the Community-based Abstinence Education and Title V program continued to allocate funding. New bill –Senate Bill 3 It is sponsored by Senator Shay Chernutt on behalf of Docket for the 2026 session of the Alabama Senate. They are seeking to require that a sex education program or curriculum taught in public schools “encourage abstinence from all sexual activities.” The bill also requires parent or guardian permission before a child becomes part of their sex education, establishing an opt-in option rather than the opt-out discussed in New Hanover County this March.
When students return to schools in New Hanover County, they face a new sex education program. The gender program removes lessons about gender and sexuality. This includes removing gender roles and discussions for the LGBTQ+ community. Last March, New Hanover County Board of Education I voted to change it Sex Education Programs are intended to comply with federal mandates related to gender identity, namely executive orders like Trump. First day in office It denied the existence of trans, intersex, and non-binary individuals.
This also marks the January 29, 2025 executive order, ” “End the radical indoctrination from kindergarten to high school” Within 90 days of the order, the Secretary of Education, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Health and Human Services said that “we will eliminate federal funding or support for unlawful and discriminatory treatment and indoctrination at K-12 schools, including gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology.” The new Hanover County Board of Education vote comes after the U.S. Department of Education’s Civil Rights Office required districts to remove DEIs or programs or initiatives focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The option to establish an opt-in program rather than an opt-out program was crushed by the school board and was a recommendation from the opposite staff, but grew up during the conversation. As set dangerous precedents and the management of child and family letters over the past week reveals, the historical (and current) funding surrounding sex education directly reflects current efforts to remove LGBTQ+ identities and same-sex relationship motives.
And it has a historical precedent – purity culture has roots in Movement of social purity From the late 19th and early 20th centuries, attempting to eliminate social impurities such as sex work and the use of birth control, along with LGBTQ+ identity and expression. Perhaps the best example is the 19th century Comstock method. Anthony Comstock, an infantryman during the Civil War, flipped the police over the sex trader on March 3, 1873, and passed his anti-control bill on March 3, 1873. In 1873, he was able to contribute to the passage of the same-name federal law, criminalizing the distribution of pornography, birth control pills, and information about them, and gave birth to the material used to produce it.
The Comstock Act of 1873 LGBTQ+ publications were classified as “indecent” And they banned their transport Through US Mail. Classification of LGBTQ+ materials as “indecent” was not upended by the Supreme Court until 1958. In 1954, the Los Angeles Postmaster argued that under the Comstock Act, gay magazines were obscene and therefore could not be transported by mail, but four years later, the Supreme Court found one Inc.v. In Olesen, it ruled that the Comstock Act was applied more than written material.
Today, abortion prevention activists are Discussing the revival Of the Comstock Act of 1873, it is still in effect, but has been dormant for the past 150 years. The law remains technically enforceable and can be used to stop the distribution of birth control and abortion pills and supplies by mail and via local airlines.
Modern anti-trans law uses some of the same language that Comstock did more than 150 years ago, allowing people to get people out of access to information about sex, birth control and abortion over 20 years ago. It is the same argument used in the 21st purity culture from the late 20th century. Library, classroomand Public spaceconservative Christian leaders argue that “protecting” children from all discussion of LGBTQ+ identity and expression can stop children from becoming gay.
Thus, the news of these letters from the administration for children and families is not surprising, but rather shows that far-right Christian politicians are mobilizing a playbook of abstinence-only sex education to target discussions of LGBTQ+ identity in schools. Mahmoudv decided in June 2025 that parents could oust children from lessons that included books that contain LGBTQ+ expressions based on religious rights. After the Taylor Supreme Court case, this aims to limit LGBTQ+ funding and include discussions of LGBTQ+ identity in sex education.
Emma Sierric He is a worker and public historian at a DC-based museum.
Source: Washington Blade: LGBTQ News, Politics, LGBTQ Rights, Gay News – www.washingtonblade.com
