Washingtonians are a people divided on critical issues of the day – red vs. blue, Rossi vs. Gregoire, Cougars vs. Huskies.

And, on the sex-education front, abstinence vs. contraception.

In Olympia, lawmakers are considering legislation that would recognize the value of both strategies in the curriculum that helps young people develop a healthy, responsible understanding of sexuality.

The inclusive approach makes so much intuitive sense that one wouldn’t expect it to be controversial – but it is. Some people think a sex-education program that stresses abstinence is unduly moralistic and narrow-minded. Others think augmenting the abstinence message with information about birth control and safe sex sends youngsters a wink-wink message that condones promiscuity.

Both sets of beliefs have broad constituencies in this state, so a public school curriculum that adopts one at the exclusion of the other would fail a substantial portion of Washington’s population.

The proposed Healthy Youth Act is based on guidelines approved this month by the Washington state Department of Health and the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (on the Web at www.k12.wa.us/curriculuminstruct/healthfitness/pubdocs/ sexedguidelines011005.doc). They make it clear that the only way to guarantee safety from pregnancy or venereal disease is to abstain from sexual intercourse.

They also reflect an understanding, reinforced by centuries of human history, that not everyone will make smart choices. Youngsters who emerge from sex-education classes armed only with the abstinence message will be at a perilous disadvantage when they have to grapple with adolescence and its hormonal realities.

It’s no coincidence that as youngsters have been learning more about contraception the rates of teen pregnancy and abortion have declined. That’s an accomplishment to be celebrated and continued.

Thus, as the public chooses sides in the sex-education debate, it is the Legislature’s duty to set policies best designed to achieve the goal set by the Department of Health and the Superintendent of Public Instruction: “safe and healthy people.” This demands a stronger directive from the state than the guidelines now embody.

Whether to teach sex education at all is optional for local school districts. That wouldn’t change under the Healthy Youth Act, but the legislation would require districts that do teach sex education to follow the guidelines.

That makes sense. Some level of statewide uniformity would guarantee that effective, factual information is presented with respect for varying personal values – as prescribed in the guidelines. The law also should clarify parents’ rights to be informed about curriculum and make their own choices about their children’s participation.

Students who learn to spell or to add and subtract can expect to use those skills throughout their lives. Too often, sex education is seen as merely a means of escorting youngsters past the teenage shoals. In fact, those lessons need to serve them as youngsters and as adults, as children and as parents, as Cougars and as Huskies.