Letters To The Editor

TEEN-AID

Teen-Aid protective of life, potential

Re: “‘Virginity’ ad devoid of virtue” (Letters, July 6) is apparently written by an angry young woman, one who was probably victimized by the loose morals of today’s society.

Unfortunately, the woman chose to express anger rather than listen to the love in the ad. Focus on the Family, and Teen-Aid through its curriculum, wants teens to live up to their complete potential. Teens (male and female) who choose premarital sex often need to cut their education short due to unplanned pregnancy. There is no question today that a teen who get AIDS has their potential, as well as their life, cut short.

Focus on the Family does not want to limit teen expression, other than sexual expression. The Teen-Aid curriculum encourages teens to increase their expression.

There is a chapter on communication, one on assertiveness skills, one on career options. Teen-Aid encourages teens to explore their possibilities. This does not sound to me like someone limiting expression, nor like someone who is anti-intellectual. Review the curriculum for yourself.

The only “information” that Teen-Aid withholds from teens is information that is so graphic it could not be printed in the newspaper. Why do 13- and 14-year-old teens need to hear how anal sex, oral sex or masturbation is done? Withholding this kind of information does not make Teen-Aid inaccurate. Ruby Hogan Spokane

Teen-Aid virtue beats alternatives

I was saddened to read the letter, “‘Virginity’ ad devoid of virtue” (July 6). The letter shows just how far our society has come from true virtue.

Webster’s Ninth defines virtue as: “conformity to a standard of right; morality. A particular moral excellence. Strength of courage. A commendable quality or trait, merit.”

Where is the virtue in telling teens hat there are no physical, emotional, or lifelong consequences to premarital sex, as long as a condom is used? Where is the virtue of the 18-year-old man who coerced a 14-year-old girl to have sex and then left her alone with the pregnancy? Where is the virtue of the girl who had sex with the captain of the football team so she could brag to her friends?

Where is the virtue of the 16-year-old who got pregnant so she could go on public assistance and move away from home? (It does happen. Girls have told me that is why they chose to get pregnant.)

Virtue is not attacking two respectable organizations, about which the writer of the letter knows nothing. Focus on the Family and Teen-Aid both promote virtue, which has been shown over history to encourage the best in society. Suzanne Schulz Reardan, Wash.

Teen-Aid promotes abstinence

As national director of Teen-Aid, I must respond to the letter, “‘Virginity’ ad devoid of virtue.”

Teen-Aid material is the most footnoted sex education material on the market today. Every medical fact and statement has been thoroughly researched. The footnotes used in the birth control information come from “Family Planning Perspectives,” a Planned Parenthood publication.

The research arm of Planned Parenthood, Alan Guttmacher Institute, puts out studies on teenage sexuality that we use endlessly.

Teen-Aid includes valuable information other programs omit. We give teens reasons to abstain from sex before marriage; a sense of the future, which has been shown in national studies to increase healthy behavior, including abstinence; and ways to refuse unwanted advances.

Condoms are not 100 percent effective. Many school programs extol the efficacy of condoms, rather than warning teens of failure rates. The Washington state AIDS model program “Know AIDS” states: “It is important that teens believe in condoms.” Isn’t it a better goal to get them to believe in abstinence, which has no failure?

I am tired of unwarranted criticism. I invite the writer of the above letter, and anyone interested, to come into the Teen-Aid office, 723 East Jackson, and peruse the curricula, rather than just spout rhetoric that has been repeated ad nauseam. LeAnna Benn Spokane

Teen-Aid all positive, all good

What is there about Teen-Aid’s curriculum that has Rae Flora (“‘Virginity’ ad devoid of virtue,” Letters, July 6) in such a lather?

Teen-Aid raises students above the animal instinct mode and encourages them to plan a positive and productive future. It also shows them how they can achieve these future goals by developing healthy relationships that are not complicated by sexual intimacy. Parents are encouraged to pass their values on to their own children at various spots in this curriculum. What could be more perfect?

One thing is for sure. For the past 30 or so years, students have not been given any positive direction. Planned Parenthood does nothing more than teach children how, give them permission and then they rake in the money when all the abortions are needed.

Teen-Aid’s message sets you free. Free from venereal disease, unwanted pregnancy, emotional distress and free from the pain of abortion. Esther Trusler Colville

Critic parrots propaganda

In response to the July 6 letter concerning an advertisement for virginity, it seems at least three rebuttals are in order.

First, having taught the Teen-Aid curriculum many times, I’m familiar with it and know that statistics concerning birth control are in the mainstream and are often from Planned Parenthood. There is not lack of footnoting.

Secondly, concerning Dr. James Dobson’s position on children’s rights, there are limits to all our rights and there are more on minors’ rights. Surely, you aren’t familiar with Dobson if you insist he is against teens expressing themselves. He and Teen-Aid are against teens being sexually active outside of marriage, but this is not a radical or conservative position. I’m sure most liberals share this belief.

Lastly, I doubt you’re really familiar with the Teen-Aid curriculum. The curriculum is not being taught in any Spokane city schools (go figure why there were 21 new Chlamydia cases last week) and few in the rest of the state.

This is not due to inaccuracies. It’s because of a systematic effort by Planned Parenthood and the office of the superintendent of public instruction to censure Teen-Aid in Washington. They have engaged in threats of lawsuits and a statewide smear campaign to preserve their place ideologically and financially in the marketplace.

The July 6 letter is a continuation of the smear and censure campaign that is presently being used. Jerry A. Schulz Reardan, Wash.

THE ENVIRONMENT

Get a load of those personal demons

Staff writer Susan English’s review of Derrick Jensen’s book,”Listening to the Land,” describes Jensen as “adding his voice to the (environmentalists’) din.” Guadalupe Flores’ July 3 letter says the book “inspires and empowers us … to work toward healing the planet.” They both miss the major point.

A careful reading of “Listening to the Land,” minus any hidden agenda, reveals the rampant egotism, puerility, infantilism, insecurity and outright greed of these alleged leaders of the environmental movement. This vital movement is disintegrating due to its leaders’ personal demons.

If short-term gratification is not replaced by long-term gain, the environmental movement will be forced to embrace as its motto the poem “Ozymandias,” by Percy Bysshe Shelley:

“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings; Look on my works, ye Mighty and despair! Nothing else remains. Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away.” Margaret Koivula Spokane

‘Radical enviros’ insatiable

The reaction to the so-called reversal by Clinton on salvaging some dead and dying timber in our forests is predictable. The radical enviros are never going to be satisfied.

Option 9 gave them more than they had ever hoped for, and that was not enough. Every ruling and injunction that turned out in their favor was quickly called a loss because it was not enough. The radical enviros call industry greedy, but their own greed knows no bounds.

Most of what the president has flip-flopped on this time is only minimally acceptable to those of us who are trying to work for a living. What we are talking about is salvage logging. It never fails to amaze me that fewer than 200 radical individuals in the entire Northwest can turn that into something so evil that thousands of people (again, the kind who want to work for a living) are put out of work and a valuable resource is left on the ground to rot and build up the fuel load for the next catastrophic fires.

Let’s just stick to common sense solutions, folks. The radicals will self-destruct if we just refuse to let them set policy. For example, what did Dr. John Osborn, head of the Inland Empire Public Lands Council, mean by “hell to pay” if things don’t go his way? Gary M. Garrison Kettle Falls