Listen to the article
State Superintendent Criticizes Controversial Education Law at Legislative Hearing
Utah’s top education official sharply criticized a controversial new law requiring schools to show an animated fetus development video during a legislative oversight hearing Wednesday, arguing the measure improperly bypasses established curriculum review procedures.
State Superintendent Sydnee Dickson told lawmakers that “The Baby Olivia Law,” which mandates schools show the Live Action video to students in health classes, circumvents longstanding protocols for reviewing and approving educational materials in Utah.
“This legislation bypasses the typical curriculum approval process that ensures educational materials are developmentally appropriate, scientifically accurate, and aligned with state standards,” Dickson said during her testimony to the Education Interim Committee.
The law, sponsored by Rep. Nicholeen Peck, R-Tooele, and passed during the 2024 legislative session, requires schools to show the four-minute animated video created by the anti-abortion advocacy group Live Action. The video depicts fetal development from fertilization to birth and has drawn both praise from pro-life advocates and criticism from medical professionals who question its scientific accuracy.
Dickson emphasized that educational materials in Utah typically undergo a rigorous vetting process involving content specialists, curriculum experts, and public review periods before implementation in classrooms. The Baby Olivia Law, however, mandates specific content without this established review.
“Our concern isn’t about the subject matter itself, but rather the precedent of legislatively mandating specific curriculum materials without proper educational review,” Dickson said.
The superintendent’s comments prompted a spirited exchange with Rep. Peck, who defended the legislation as providing important biological information to students.
“Young people deserve to understand human development, and this video presents the miracle of life in an accessible, age-appropriate format,” Peck said. “The scientific facts of human development shouldn’t be controversial.”
Critics of the law have raised concerns about both the process and the content. Dr. Alexandra Ginder, an OB-GYN who has reviewed the video, told reporters after the hearing that it contains several scientific inaccuracies and uses terminology not consistent with medical standards.
“The video anthropomorphizes the fetus in ways that aren’t scientifically accurate and presents certain developmental milestones earlier than they actually occur,” Dr. Ginder said.
Education advocates also expressed concerns about legislative micromanagement of curriculum. Utah Education Association President Renée Pinkney noted that the law represents a troubling trend.
“Professional educators and subject matter experts should be central to curriculum decisions,” Pinkney said. “This law removes that professional discretion and replaces it with legislative mandate.”
The law is scheduled to take effect in January 2025, when schools must begin showing the video to students in health education classes. The State Board of Education is currently developing implementation guidelines, though several districts have expressed confusion about how to incorporate the mandated content.
The controversy highlights growing tensions nationwide over educational content, particularly around topics related to human development, sexuality, and reproduction. At least six other state legislatures have considered similar measures requiring the Live Action video in public schools.
Sen. Lincoln Fillmore, R-South Jordan, who co-sponsored the Senate version of the bill, acknowledged the procedural concerns but defended the content.
“Sometimes the legislature needs to be specific about what’s taught in our schools,” Fillmore said. “This video provides factual information about human development that every student should understand.”
The Education Interim Committee took no action following Dickson’s testimony, though Committee Chair Rep. Karen Peterson said the implementation would be closely monitored.
“We want to ensure this content is presented appropriately and that teachers have the support they need,” Peterson said.
As schools prepare for implementation, some parents have requested opt-out provisions, which the law does not specifically address. The State Board of Education indicated it would provide guidance on potential accommodation requests before the January implementation date.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
11 Comments
Requiring schools to show a specific video on a sensitive topic like abortion sets a concerning precedent. Curriculum decisions should follow established processes to ensure balance and objectivity.
Well said. Politicizing sex ed risks undermining its purpose of providing young people with accurate, age-appropriate information to make informed decisions.
Curriculum decisions should be made carefully, with input from educators, health professionals, and the community. Mandating a particular video seems like an overreach that could politicize sex ed.
Curious to hear more about the rationale behind this proposal. What research or evidence supports the use of this specific video?
This is a sensitive and controversial issue. While I understand the desire to educate students, mandating the showing of a specific video raises concerns about bias and appropriate curriculum development processes.
I agree that established procedures should be followed to ensure materials are accurate and age-appropriate. Circumventing those protocols could undermine trust in the education system.
While I respect the desire to educate students, bypassing established curriculum review processes raises red flags. Sex ed materials should be scientifically accurate and age-appropriate, not ideologically driven.
While I understand the desire to provide information about fetal development, I’m concerned about the potential bias in an anti-abortion advocacy group’s video. Sex ed should be based on science, not ideology.
Agreed. Comprehensive, fact-based sex ed is important, but this appears to be a political move rather than an educational one.
Mandating the use of a video from an anti-abortion group is concerning. Sex ed should cover a range of perspectives and information, not just one viewpoint. This seems like an attempt to push a political narrative.
This proposal seems to be more about advancing a particular ideological agenda than providing comprehensive, balanced sex ed. Curriculum should be developed thoughtfully, not mandated by legislation.