This week in Dover, we’re continuing to see a clear pattern take shape—not just in the bills being introduced, but in the philosophy driving them.
And if you’re paying attention, it raises an important question:
What kind of foundation are we building policy on—and what happens when that foundation shifts?
We’re going to walk through three bills today: HB 300, SB 236, and SB 250.
One that already moved. Two that are about to be heard.
And all three, in different ways, point to the same deeper issue—truth, authority, and who gets to define reality.
HB 300 – Title IX Coordinator & The Contradiction
Let’s start with House Bill 300, which had its committee hearing this week.
On its surface, HB 300 creates a statewide Title IX Coordinator—a centralized position to oversee how schools handle Title IX compliance in K–12 athletics.
We discussed briefly last week how the initial sound of the bill is administrative in nature and essentially harmless. But as always, the details–and even the timing–matter.
During the hearing, the bill’s sponsor made this statement:
“In terms of the big picture, we know that athletics are closely tied to academic success, engagement, and confidence. For girls, especially, athletics can really help with confidence during adolescence and build leadership and belonging.”
And that’s where the contradiction becomes impossible to ignore. Because that statement is absolutely true.
Athletics do build confidence.
They do create belonging.
They do shape leadership—especially for girls.
But here’s the problem:
That same commitment to protecting girls in sports was nowhere to be found when SB 215 was on the table.
SB 215 is the bill designed specifically to protect fairness in girls’ sports—ensuring that biological males are not competing in female athletic categories. So on one hand, we hear strong language about supporting girls. On the other hand, when it comes time to actually protect the integrity of girls’ sports, that support disappears.
That’s more than just policy misalignment. It’s an actual philosophical inconsistency. But when you look more closely at HB 300, you see that the misalignment is on an ideological level.
The bill states:
“(c) Delaware’s public schools serving grades 6 through 12 may not exclude a person from participation in, deny the benefits of, treat a person differently from another person in, or otherwise discriminate against a person in, an interscholastic, club, or intramural athletics, on the basis of sex.”
And this becomes even more concerning when you look at what happened in the hearing itself. Representative Jones-Giltner asked a very direct—and very important—question. She said:
“How does the Department of Education define a female? Define that sex as to be protected by Title IX?”
That’s not a small question, but a very central one to this argument. Because everything in this bill hinges on how “sex” is actually defined.
And the response?
The answer given was that the Department of Education is not using its own clear definition, but rather following broader federal guidance. At the start of 2025, President Trump actually issued an Executive Order on sex definitions to make it very clear.
That order clarified the definition of “sex” so that’s it’s explicitly understood as the following:
- An immutable biological classification;
- Having only the binary “male” or “female” classifications; and
- Not including gender identity
It quite literally grounds the recognized definition of sex within biological reality, what the body is ordered toward at the reproductive level.
So let’s just follow the logic.
If HB 300 is operating under that kind of definition—or even claims to be grounded in “sex” as a protected category—then what does the bill actually do?
Because remember the clause:
“may not exclude a person from participation in… athletics… on the basis of sex.”
So if “sex” is biological…and the bill says you cannot treat people differently on the basis of sex…Then what does that mean in practice?
Does that mean a biological male cannot be excluded from participating in girls’ sports—because doing so would be treating him differently based on sex?
If that’s the case, then we are not protecting girls’ athletics. We are doing the exact opposite. We are removing the very distinction that allows girls’ sports to exist in the first place. And that’s where the tension with SB 215 becomes unmistakable.
SB 215 was written to protect girls’ sports by recognizing biological differences.
HB 300, whether intentionally or not, creates a framework that could erase those distinctions entirely.
So are we actually legislating protections for girls… or are we legislating them out of existence?
Because you cannot hold both positions at the same time. You cannot say that girls’ sports matter for confidence, leadership, and opportunity—and then support a structure that removes the very boundaries that make those spaces possible.
At some point, the language has to match the reality. And right now, it doesn’t. So while it may appear procedural, it is anything but neutral.
HB 300 passed out of committee and has now been sent to the Appropriations Committee for a fiscal note.
SB 236 – Restoring What Should Never Have Been Lost
Now let’s turn to SB 236, which will be heard in committee this coming Wednesday.
This is a bill we support, and it gets at something deeply important—something that often gets overlooked in modern conversations about fertility and family. SB 236 focuses on donor transparency in fertility clinics.
Specifically, it ensures that when a child is conceived through donor means—whether sperm or egg donation—there is recorded and accessible information about that biological parent.
There are two key pieces to this bill.
First, it allows for medical history from the donor to be available to the child’s legally recognized parent at any point during the child’s upbringing.
And that matters.
Because medical history is not just informational—it can be critical. It can shape diagnoses, guide treatment decisions, and even prevent life-threatening complications. Without it, families are left navigating health decisions in the dark.
SB 236 also requires that identifying information about the donor be collected and preserved, and then made accessible to the child once they turn 18.
That means that when that child becomes an adult, they have the opportunity—if they so choose—to know where they come from and potentially reach out to their biological parent.
And that brings us to something deeper.
Because over time, the growing distance between a child and the individual who donates to a fertility clinic has created an environment where children are commodified. They are often treated less like individuals and more like products of a process.
When biological connection is intentionally obscured or removed, it becomes easier for the system to operate in a way that feels transactional. And that’s a huge part of where concerns about commodification begin to emerge.
Children were never meant to be the outcome of a transaction. They are not goods to be produced, selected, or distributed. Scripture tells us in Psalm 127:3 that children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.”
SB 236 doesn’t undo all of the complexities that come with donor conception. But it does take a step in the opposite direction of that distancing. It reintroduces accountability, traceability, and just as importantly, identity into a system that has often functioned without them.
From a Biblical worldview, this matters deeply. Identity is not something we invent. It is something we are given—rooted in how we were created, and yes, in who we come from. Scripture consistently affirms the importance of lineage, of knowing one’s family, of understanding one’s place in a broader story.
And while modern technology has changed the way children may be conceived, it does not remove the human need to know one’s origin.
SB 236 recognizes that. It acknowledges that children are not simply the result of a process, but individuals with a story that matters.
And in a policy landscape that often prioritizes adult preference, this bill takes a meaningful step toward recognizing the rights and dignity of the child. It’s not a complete solution. But it is a move in the right direction.
SB 250 – When Definitions Are Erased
Now, alongside SB 236, we also have SB 250 being heard this coming Wednesday.
And this is where things take a very different turn. Because on the surface, SB 250 includes many of the same elements as SB 236, particularly around donor information and access for children conceived through fertility clinics.
But in addition to those provisions, SB 250 makes sweeping changes across Delaware code, particularly within the Uniform Parentage Act, to remove gender-specific language.
In plain terms, that means replacing words like “mother” and “father” with gender-neutral terminology. This is an issue because language in law is more than just descriptive, but literally definitional.
Removing terms like “mother” and “father,” isn’t a simple update within code, but visually and culturally aiding in redefining the family structure itself.
You are moving away from a framework rooted in biological reality—where a child has a mother and a father—and toward a system where parenthood is abstracted, interchangeable, and detached from sex altogether.
And that has real consequences.
Because once those definitions are removed from code, they won’t just disappear on paper, but also in how the law will legally understand and recognize issues like:
- parental rights
- parental responsibilities
- and ultimately, the child’s connection to their own origin
We’ve seen similar efforts at the national level—particularly through proposed updates to the Uniform Parentage Act—but that doesn’t make it something to dismiss at the state level.
In fact, it makes it more important to examine closely. Because this is how large cultural shifts often happen. Not all at once—but through incremental legal changes that slowly reshape how society understands foundational relationships.
From a Biblical worldview, this matters deeply.
Because the family is not a social construct to be redefined at will. It is an institution created by God.
Scripture consistently affirms the distinct roles of mother and father, not as interchangeable titles, but as meaningful, complementary realities that contribute to the well-being of a child.
When those distinctions are erased in law, it doesn’t just create neutrality. It creates confusion.
And ultimately, it shifts the focus away from what is best for the child—and toward what is most flexible for culture based on shifting ideology.
So while SB 236 works to restore something important—a child’s access to their biological identity— SB 250, at the same time, works to remove the very language that makes that identity intelligible.
And that tension is important to recognize. Because the question is not just whether parts of the bill sound reasonable. The question is whether, taken as a whole, it moves us closer to truth—or further away from it.
That’s why SB 250 is not a bill to accept at face value.
It’s one that requires careful scrutiny, clear thinking, and a willingness to look beyond the surface.
The Bigger Picture – When Definitions Shape Reality
When you step back and look at these three bills together, something much bigger starts to come into focus. Because this isn’t just about three separate pieces of legislation.
It’s about how we define reality—and what happens when those definitions begin to shift.
Take HB 300.
At its core, the issue isn’t just athletics. It’s the question of whether something as fundamental as sex is understood as a fixed, biological reality—or something that can be interpreted and applied however the system chooses.
Because once that definition becomes unclear, everything built on top of it becomes unstable, including fairness in girls’ sports.
Then you move to SB 236.
And here, you see a corrective measure. A recognition that even in modern systems like fertility clinics, there are realities that cannot be erased—identity, origin, and connection.
It pushes back against a culture that has allowed distance to grow between parent and child to the point where children can be treated as outcomes instead of individuals.
SB 236 says: that distance matters. That origin matters. That knowing where you come from matters.
And then right alongside it, you have SB 250.
A bill that, while including some of the same provisions, simultaneously works to remove the very language that gives those realities meaning.
Because once you erase terms like “mother” and “father,” you are no longer just adjusting wording. You are redefining the structure of the family itself.
And when that happens, the law begins to operate not on what is true—but on what is is being adapted.
That’s the thread connecting all three of these bills.
- HB 300 raises the question: Can reality be redefined?
- SB 236 answers: Some realities must be preserved.
- SB 250 tests: What happens when we erase those realities anyway?
And from a Biblical worldview, this is where clarity matters most. Because Scripture doesn’t treat identity, sex, or family as fluid concepts. They are created realities.
Given—not assigned.
Defined—not constructed.
And when policy begins to drift away from those truths, it doesn’t just change laws.
It changes how a society understands:
- who we are
- where we come from
- and how we are meant to live
But here’s the encouragement in all of this. Truth doesn’t shift just because culture does.
It doesn’t weaken when it’s challenged.
It doesn’t disappear when it’s ignored.
It remains.
Which means our role is not to redefine truth: it’s to recognize it, uphold it, and speak it clearly, even when it’s unpopular.
Closing Call to Action
So as we head into this coming week:
- Watch SB 236 and be ready to support it.
- Approach SB 250 with discernment and careful evaluation.
- And continue to track what happens with HB 300, because its impact is far from over.
Most importantly, be ready to engage.
To speak. To testify. To stand.
Because the direction of policy will always follow the foundation it’s built on. And if that foundation is unstable, everything built on it eventually will be too. So the question in front of us isn’t just about these bills. It’s about whether we are willing to stand on what is true, even when everything around us is trying to redefine it.
And that takes courage. But not a courage rooted in ourselves. A courage rooted in the knowledge that truth is not ours to create—it is ours to uphold.
And that is exactly what this moment requires.