Parents are sick of finding out what their kids have seen after it's too late.
Legislators, the time for half-measures is over. Kansas must pass strong legislation for all public libraries and school materials containing sexually explicit content. No blanket bans. No viewpoint discrimination. Just parents deciding for their own children.
Public libraries and schools are stocking graphic sexual content — explicit illustrations and detailed descriptions of sexual acts — and handing it straight to minors with zero barriers. Both public institutions have policies that state "parents are responsible" while deliberately creating an environment that makes responsible parenting impossible.
Kansas Law Is Strong, But Leaves Gaps for Schools and Libraries
Kansas already prohibits the promotion of material “harmful to minors” under K.S.A. 21-6402 in commercial settings. K.S.A. 21-6401 uses the same definitions and prohibits promotion of obscenity to minors in schools and libraries, however both simply adopt American Library Association style open-access rules, then claim legal cover. The result? Unrestricted browsing, self-checkout of adult books at any age, and eye-level displays of graphic content — while parents are told “you are responsible.”
This is what you see on the cover...
 |
| Sex is a Funny Word (Silverberg) |
A bright, cartoonish cover with smiling characters and playful fonts gives parents the false impression that the book is innocent and age-appropriate. There are no warnings, no age stickers, no content labels.
Placement in the library is perceived by most parents as guidance on what their child could safely read.
 |
| It's Perfectly Normal (Harris, Emberly) |
Public Library Books Instructing Children How to Masturbate on the Shelf for Kindergartners
There's nothing on the cover to alert a parent that graphic sexual illustrations and explicit descriptions await their child, including masturbation, genital touching, anal sex, oral sex, and encouragement to experience sexual pleasure.
But this is what your child sees inside...
 |
| It's Perfectly Normal (Harris, Emberly) |
.jpeg) |
| Sex is a Funny Word (Silverberg) |
 |
| It's Perfectly Normal (Harris, Emberly) |
.jpeg) |
| Sex is a Funny Word (Silverberg) |
Look at the text on each page--
Does it look to you like it's written for a first-grade reader?
Both of these books are in the Children's section in many public libraries in Kansas.
Would you know what is inside the book from looking at the cover? Even if you are only a few feet away, would you be able to see what your child has just seen?
How exactly are parents supposed to exercise that responsibility when the author and publisher deliberately hides the content behind comforting, child-friendly and inviting packaging? Even if the word "sex" is on the cover, when the book is in a pile of kids books, it doesn't really click as to what's inside because parents don't expect this content to be in the Children's section at the public library or in the school library.
That's intentional and deceptive.
This is not parental empowerment. This is a deliberate setup that makes real parental oversight impossible. They cannot pre-read every title on every shelf or every digital download from Sunflower eLibrary.
Parents cannot be expected to read every book in the library before their child looks at it.
But you know who can, don't you?
Regional library systems, public libraries and public schools across Kansas already use sophisticated AI-powered curation software every single day. Tools built into OverDrive/Libby, Follett Destiny, Baker & Taylor’s Title Source, and other common library management systems routinely scan thousands of titles for age-appropriateness, violence, language, and sensitive content. These AI systems flag books for “mature themes,” “sexual content,” “drug use,” and dozens of other categories in seconds.
There's no need to repeat the process, because publishers and editors have already reviewed all materials before the pages are printed. There's no secret being kept from the libraries or schools as to the content of the books children are given.
Only parents are expected to figure out what their child is going to be exposed to while everyone else involved already has the information.
That's called gaslighting.
Libraries and public schools are not incapable of curating the books that your children see based on content. They choose to base collection policies on subjective literary awards and marketing from publishers. Community Standards are not part of the process.
How exactly does that work?
Somehow parents are supposed to be able to know what is inside every book that their child picks up to look at, but the library-- with powerful AI tools and documented text review for all available literature in all of history-- is suddenly technologically helpless and cannot be expected to even identify sexually explicit materials.. Library Boards and School Boards approve policies that give children open access graphic sexual content while making it nearly impossible for parents to exercise their rights over their own children.
Right now, there is no pre-collection review process, no age-appropriate shelving, and no content warnings. Titles are ordered according to direction from publishers and marketing companies who are not required to follow Kansas law. This deliberate refusal to enforce or even consider 21-6401 and 21-6402 leaves children unprotected and forces parents into reactive, book-by-book fights after the fact.
Kansas law already has an religious opt-out in K.S.A. 72-3120 (which is an attendance statute) but it is narrow, reactive, and practically useless for library books or broad curriculum content. Parents must first discover the explicit material after their child has already seen it, then beg the school to excuse participation in a single ‘activity.’
That is not exercising parental rights — that is a game of parental Whack-A-Mole.
The Child Internet Protection Act (K.S.A. 75-2589) allows children to be exposed to adult materials hiding under the shell that houses the online library access at school since the CHIP act applies only to external websites on public computers.
Parents just have to wait for the ultimate "gotcha" moment, when the child sees something they are not ready for and innocence cannot be recovered. then jump through bureaucratic hoops and roadblocks, attend meetings, protest in writing, or stop going to the library entirely in order to protect their children.
If Parents are supposed to know what is in every book, then why is it too much to ask of the libraries?
Publishers, editors, public libraries and public schools all have the option use AI tools to identify sexually explicit material that meets the clear definitions already written in K.S.A. 21-6401 and 21-6402, and voluntarily share that information with parents prior to the children being exposed to the materials so parents can decide what's best for their children.
No Laws Support Opposition to Parental Rights
Publishers, booksellers, nor public schools/libraries have no authority to override parents fundamental rights to direct their children's education, upbringing and moral development.
- Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972):
Parents have a substantive due-process right (14th Amendment) to control
their child's education and moral formation.
- Ginsberg v. New York (1968): The
Supreme Court explicitly upheld stricter "variable obscenity"
standards for minors. States may prohibit sales/distribution of materials
"harmful to minors" (e.g., nudity or sexual depictions
appealing to prurient interest for kids) even if not obscene for adults. The Court rejected the argument that minors have the same "freedom
to read" sexual content as adults, emphasizing parental authority
and the state's interest in shielding children. This
case is cited frequently because the interpretation is it is
not censorship to restrict children's exposure to sexually explicit
materials.
- K.S.A. 21-6402 "Harmful to Minors"
Kansas law defines “material harmful to minors” using the three-prong
Miller test (adapted for minors from Miller v. California, 1973):
1. Whether
the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that
the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest of minors;
2. Whether
the material depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct
specifically defined by applicable state law; and
3. Whether
the material, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value for minors.
- K.S.A. 21-6401 "Promotion of Obscenity to
Minors" uses the same definitions as 21-6402 and
applies the Miller test to materials in libraries, and hold library
boards responsible
- Mahmoud v. Taylor (June
2025): The Court expanded this, holding that schools must accommodate
parental opt-outs (under Free Exercise and due process) when curriculum
implicates religious/moral objections to certain content (including
LGBTQ+ themes). It rejected schools' attempts to override parental
authority in the name of inclusivity or access.
- K.S.A. 38-141 preserves parents
fundamental rights to exercise primary control over the care and
upbringing of their children in their charge.
- Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School
District v. Pico (457 U.S. 853, 1982) recent 5th Circuit
rulings (2025) have narrowed Pico further, emphasizing that removal for
vulgarity or unsuitability is permissible. Limits only removals
motivated purely by disagreement with ideas (viewpoint
discrimination). Affirmatively permits restrictions
based on pervasive vulgarity, explicit sexual content, or educational
unsuitability—the exact criteria Kansas law uses to protect minors.
Leaves intact the state’s compelling interest in shielding children from
material harmful to minors.
Books cannot be removed from libraries or schools just because someone doesn't like the content.
When an “idea” is conveyed through sexually explicit content that meets the K.S.A. 21-6401 definition (or the harmful-to-minors standard), access may be restricted in a school or library on the basis of being sexually explicit or consistently vulgar. Materials containing LGBTQ ideology but no sexually explicit content would be protected from removal under the current laws. If the restriction is to comply with state child-protection law and parental rights, it is constitutional under Pico. Courts routinely distinguish legitimate educational/child-protection motives from the pretext of ideological censorship.
In short:
- Preventing exposure to obscenity/harmful-to-minors material—is expressly allowed by Pico’s own language and the dissents.
- Pico does not create a constitutional right for students, parents, publishers, or educators to demand school-provided access to materials that Kansas law deems harmful to minors.
- Schools/libraries remain bound by K.S.A. 21-6401/6402 and cannot be forced by Pico to violate those statutes or override parental authority.
Other States are Already Working on the Issue
Arizona’s opt-in law (HB 2495) (2022) requires public schools to identify qualifying materials and requires parental consent on a per-material basis. If consent is not secured, an alternative assignment that does not contain sexually explicit material must be offered. "All textual, visual, and audio materials or materials accessed via any other medium are prohibited from depicting sexual conduct, including acts of masturbation, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breasts. Parental consent is required before materials referring to sexual excitement, meaning the condition of human male or female genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal and any content describing "ultimate sexual acts" meaning sexual intercourse, vaginal or anal, fellatio, cunnilingus, bestiality or sodomy. A sexual act is simulated when it depicts explicit sexual activity that gives the appearance of consummation of ultimate sexual acts."
There have been no successful legal challenges to this law.
Pennsylvania Senate Bill 230 (introduced February 3, 2025) offers a proven, common-sense solution that actually puts parents back in charge. SB 230 amends the Pennsylvania Public School Code to require every public school entity (districts, charters, etc.) to create a clear parental-control policy for sexually explicit content. The bill does not ban books. Instead, it demands transparency and affirmative consent: - Mandatory identification: Schools must publicly list every instructional material and library book that contains “sexually explicit content.”
- Opt-in consent form: No student can be given or allowed access to such material unless a parent or guardian signs and returns a specific opt-in form. The form must include the exact legal warning and a list of titles.
- Advance lists: The form must include the specific titles and materials scheduled for use or available in the library that meet the definition.
- Automatic alternatives: If a parent does not opt in (or fails to return the form), the child receives non-explicit alternative materials and activities with no academic penalty.
- Parental review right: Parents can request to examine any qualifying material at any time.
- Public input: Schools must hold a public forum before adopting the policy.
SB 230 is built on one clear theory: parents are the rightful gatekeepers. Schools must create a transparent policy, list every qualifying title, and use a specific opt-in form that cites the legal definition of “sexual conduct.” Parents can review the materials if they wish. It covers curriculum, handouts, and libraries alike.
The pending legislation is not vague nor overbroad. It is a straightforward mechanism that respects both parental rights and the First Amendment. The definitions are precise and track Kansas’s own statutes. This bill will empower parents without removing books and without running afoul of Pico.
This is common-sense protection that respects the reality every parent already knows: children explore open environments without knowing the risks or dangers that await them.
It's Time for Kansas to Solve the Problem
A Kansas version of PA SB 230 and AZ HB 2495 would fix this enforcement gap immediately. By requiring schools and libraries to identify every qualifying book in advance and obtain opt-in informed consent, the law would create a clear, enforceable record. Material that meets the Miller test for “harmful to minors” could no longer be quietly made available to children without parental permission.
A similar bill in Kansas would finally enforce our existing harmful-to-minors laws and give families the tools they need to exercise their fundamental responsibilities. Violations would trigger both the new transparency law and the existing criminal statutes — finally giving district attorneys and the Attorney General the tools they need to act.
This proposed bill creates a real, workable parental control mechanism that actually enforces existing harmful-to-minors laws (21-6401/21-6402) instead of leaving parents to fight reactive battles with limited tools. Public institutions would be accountable for using available tools to ensure that unexpected sexually explicit content will not be accessed by children unless parents are aware and give permission.
This would be far stronger than any existing legislation intended to restore Parent's Rights because it is:
- Proactive — requires schools/libraries to identify sexually explicit materials in advance and get opt-in informed consent before exposure.
- Broad — applies to both instructional materials and library books (physical and digital).
- Clear — uses a standardized form with a list of titles to review and the statutory definitions.
- Enforceable — ties compliance to the loss of the affirmative defense in K.S.A. 21-6401 and 21-6402.
In summary, the proposal says:
Apply 21-6401 and 21-6401 before giving access to children and change the policy to require parental opt-in consent for any qualified materials, or lose the legal shield and face the consequences of violating Kansas law if sexually explicit materials are made accessible to children without parental consent.
It's that simple.
This legislation would resolve all battles over Reconsideration Requests and bizarre library policies that limit reconsideration to once every 5 years per title. If a parent doesn't want their child to read a certain book, they don't give permission.
No one is asking librarians to read every page of every book. This law would require them to use the very AI tools they already own and operate to flag the narrow category of sexually explicit content — using tools and abilities they already have.
This bill would end the charade. It does not remove books. It simply requires libraries and schools to identify sexually explicit materials in advance, give parents a clear list of the materials their child may see, an opt-in consent form, and provide non-explicit alternatives when consent is not given. For the first time, parents would actually have the information they need before their child sees the book — truly enabling them to do exactly what librarians have insisted is the parent’s job all along.
Library and School Boards have always had the power to protect children from sexually explicit content. If this proposed legislation becomes law, they will both have the legal responsibility.
Public Schools and Public Libraries are Co-Mingled
Kansas public schools and public libraries operate as a coordinated governmental network when they share student enrollment data to issue library accounts and grant minors access to sexually explicit materials — frequently on school computers and networks.
This data-sharing and account linkage constitutes joint state action. When students access library content through school-issued devices or school networks, the school actively facilitates and hosts the library’s materials. Under Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) and Pico, the school bears responsibility for content delivered in its environment, including the public library materials made accessible to minors.
Both entities are bound by the same statutes:
- K.S.A. 21-6401 and 21-6402 (protecting minors from obscenity and harmful material), and
- K.S.A. 38-141 (recognizing parents’ fundamental right to direct their children’s upbringing and moral development).
The current practice of issuing library accounts from school records and allowing unrestricted access on school computers denies parents any meaningful notice or consent, directly violating K.S.A. 38-141.
Because schools and libraries function as one pipeline delivering content to Kansas children, the proposed legislation correctly treats them as a unified governmental system. Any material made available through a school-linked library account or on school premises must be subject to identification, parental notification, and opt-in consent. This is not an expansion of the law — it is a necessary recognition of the existing coordinated reality and enforcement of established Kansas statutes and parental rights.
The legislature has both the authority and the duty to close the loophole schools and libraries claim, that 21-6402 does not apply to them when the definitions are clearly present and nearly identical in 21-6401, which does apply to libraries. The library cannot evade these standards by labeling itself “separate” when the delivery mechanism is inside the school environment.
The First Amendment Is Upheld
Critics call attempts to curate by age-appropriateness “censorship.” The opposite is true. Opt-in consent is the least restrictive way to protect minors while preserving full access for adults and consenting parents. The court determined that the state may shield children from material that is not obscene for adults. School and library collections are government speech. It follows Ginsberg v. New York (1968) in which Justice Brennan wrote that "obscenity was not within the area of protected speech or press."
Children cannot have a constitutional right to view sexually explicit or mature content materials when those materials are not within the area of protected speech in the first place.
All materials are readily available to adults, and no public institution is required to provide any particular title or material.
So if the authors rights to Free Speech are not suppressed, and Children do not have the constitutional right to access sexually explicit materials, then whose 1st Amendment Rights are allegedly being violated?
The Freedom to Read from the ALA Bill of Rights is not a right at all. It's a policy suggestion. It's not law, it's not enforceable, and ignoring it violates no one's rights. It cannot override parents rights, Kansas Law, and children's rights to be protected from materials harmful to them.
An Opt-in system guarantees informed consent. Opt-in consent is milder than removal — it leaves books on the shelf for consenting families. No viewpoint is suppressed.
A Proposal to the Kansas Legislature
AN ACT concerning public libraries and schools; relating to the protection of childhood innocence and parental responsibility; requiring identification of and parental opt-in consent for sexually explicit materials; amending K.S.A. 21-6401, K.S.A. 21-6402 and K.S.A. 12-1225; requiring the Kansas State Library Handbook to address this act; and repealing the library affirmative-defense loophole in certain circumstances.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas:
Section 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act.
Section 2. Legislative Findings and Purpose.
The legislature finds that:
(a) Parents possess the fundamental constitutional right to direct the upbringing, education, and moral development of their children, as recognized by K.S.A. 38-141 and long-standing decisions of the United States Supreme Court;
(b) Children do not possess a constitutional right to access sexually explicit materials;
(c) Public libraries and schools act in a governmental capacity and must prevent accidental exposure of minors to sexually explicit materials that are in view or within reach of children in any physical or digital setting;
(d) Pursuant to K.S.A. 21-6401 and K.S.A. 21-6402, adults in positions of authority in public institutions have a statutory duty to protect children from the promotion of obscenity and material harmful to minors by taking affirmative steps to shield minors from such content; and
(e) The purpose of this act is to require transparent identification of and affirmative parental consent for any sexually explicit material while preserving access for consenting parents and upholding the First Amendment rights of adults.
Section 3. Definitions.
As used in this act:
(a) “Sexually explicit material” means any book, publication, digital resource, display, illustration, or other material that:
(1) contains visual or written depictions or descriptions of sexual conduct as defined in K.S.A. 21-6401(f)(2); or
(2) meets the definition of material harmful to minors under K.S.A. 21-6402(b).
(b) “Sexual conduct” has the meaning ascribed thereto in K.S.A. 21-6401(f)(2).
(c) “Harmful to minors” has the meaning ascribed thereto in K.S.A. 21-6402(b).
(d) “School entity” means any public school, school district, charter school, or school library.
(e) “Library entity” means any public library, regional library system, or library consortium operating under Kansas law.
(f) “Digital material” means any material made available to a child through an online account, catalog, application, or digital platform tied to a public library entity, school entity, or government-issued library or school credential, including but not limited to consortium-shared resources such as Sunflower eLibrary.
Section 4. Policy Requirements for All Library and School Entities.
(a) The governing body of every library entity and school entity shall develop and publicly post a written policy, after reasonable public notice and opportunity for comment at a public forum, that:
(1) directly identifies all sexually explicit materials that are in view or within reach of children in any physical area of the facility or in any digital material accessible through an online account tied to a government entity;
(2) requires written parental consent before any minor may access or view such materials; and
(3) provides non-explicit alternative materials or assignments when consent is not given.
(b) The policy shall include a standard opt-in consent form that states: “By signing this document I am giving permission for my child to be provided books, handouts and instructional material that may include written or visual depictions of sexual conduct. Sexual conduct is defined in law as acts of masturbation, sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality or physical contact with a person’s clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or, if the person is a female, breast.”
(c) The opt-in form shall include a list of the specific book titles and materials that meet the definition of sexually explicit content and are scheduled to be used as part of curriculum, class discussion, or available within the library, school, or through any online account.
(d) The policy shall permit the parent or legal guardian of a student to review any instructional materials or library books containing sexually explicit content upon request.
(e) If the parent or legal guardian does not give permission or has not submitted a completed opt-in form, the child shall be provided with alternative non-explicit instructional materials and related activities.
(f) Consistent with the duty of adults under K.S.A. 21-6401 and K.S.A. 21-6402 to protect children from obscenity and material harmful to minors, all adults working in or supervising areas accessible to children shall take affirmative steps to prevent accidental exposure of minors to sexually explicit materials. Parents shall be notified of the materials prior to a child’s potential exposure through the opt-in mechanism. This requirement applies to all digital materials made available through any online account tied to a government entity.
Section 5. State Library Handbook Requirement.
The State Library of Kansas shall revise the Kansas Public Library Handbook to address and incorporate the requirements of the Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act. No policy, guidance, or handbook issued by the State Library may rely upon or incorporate any private organization’s standards or recommendations that conflict with the provisions of this act.
Section 6. Amendment to K.S.A. 21-6401.
K.S.A. 21-6401 is hereby amended to read as follows:
…
(g) The affirmative defense provided in subsection (g)(2) shall not apply to any library entity or school entity that fails to comply with the policy requirements of the Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act or that relies upon conflicting guidance from any private organization in a manner that violates this act.
Section 7. Amendment to K.S.A. 21-6402.
K.S.A. 21-6402 is hereby amended to read as follows:
…
(c) The affirmative defense provided in subsection (c)(2) shall not apply to any library entity or school entity that fails to comply with the policy requirements of the Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act or that relies upon conflicting guidance from any private organization in a manner that violates this act.
Section 8. Amendment to K.S.A. 12-1225.
K.S.A. 12-1225 is hereby amended to add a new subsection:
(e) Each library board shall adopt policies consistent with the Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act and shall be responsible for ensuring compliance by library staff and any consortium in which the library participates. No library board may adopt or maintain any policy that incorporates or defers to private organizational guidelines that conflict with this act.
Section 9. Effective Date.
This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its publication in the statute book and shall apply to the 2026-2027 school year and library fiscal year.
Common Sense in the Spotlight
Parents have the right — and the responsibility — to shield their children from sexually explicit material. Public libraries and schools must stop pretending they have no role in making that possible.
Public institutions that refuse to provide lists, warnings, or consent procedures are not respecting parental rights — they are obstructing them.
Public institutions have the resources to review millions of pages of text and images in a matter of minutes for any materials that have potential for curation. Parents do not have that ability.
Parents cannot exercise their responsibilities when they don’t know what the material contains until their child has already seen it.
Current Kansas law uphold parent's rights and responsibility over their children. Library policies state that Parents are responsible for what their children see at the library.
Kansas Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act will finally make that responsibility possible.
Share this blog post. Tag your legislators. Ask them to introduce and pass the Childhood Innocence and Parental Responsibility Protection Act in the 2026 session.
The fight for our children’s innocence rests with Topeka with one bill that could change everything.
Parents are no longer asking for permission to protect their children.
K.S.A. 72-3120 "Parent's Rights"
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
