Letters to the editor

Abstinence-only best choice

The house editorial in the Feb. 17 edition reported that one in five teenagers is having sex before age 15.

While that is concerning, that’s only 20 percent. The same survey reports 71 percent of youth aged 12 to 19 are choosing abstinence. So what are we doing to support the kids making the healthier choice?

JMU is a liberal campus, which is different from the conservative counties of Rockingham and Augusta. Most of the schools mandate abstinence-only programs. What good would a comprehensive sex education program do if we couldn’t do the program anywhere?

A contraceptive-based campaign would not work in our community, not in our schools, and not in most workplaces. If we were ignoring the issue, we wouldn’t have a media campaign, or exist as a program at all.

The United States has funded contraceptive-focused programs for 30 years. In 2002, the government spent $12 promoting contraception for every $1 spent promoting abstinence, yet the United States still leads western nations the world in teen pregnancies.

It’s popular to jump on the anti-abstinence-only bandwagon. There are no programs that tell kids "don’t drink, but if you do drink, here are some tips to avoid a hangover." Why is asking kids to abstain from alcohol ok, but asking them to abstain from sexual activity taboo?

Katie Baird
teen pregnancy prevention
program assistant
senior, psychology major

\Kim Hartzler-Weakley (’00)
teen pregnancy prevention
coordinator
Office on Children and
Youth at JMU

Grant limits, better than nothing

We happen to be in that "one speech communication class" that will be helping to create the media campaign to promote abstinence awareness to teens, parents and the community. The fact is that the $1.3 million grant given to the initiative came straight from President Bush, and he wants an abstinence-only campaign.

We would love to be able to be more educational with our media campaign, but it’s either take the grant money and use it wisely or leave it.

Frankly, we’d rather promote abstinence than nothing at all. Should we just throw in the towel and ignore an enormous opportunity to talk to kids about abstaining from sex, just because it’s only "half the battle?"

We’re working with what we were given and are confident in our ability to get worthwhile results in the end. This campaign is about creating awareness about sex, pregnancy and STDs — something that many teens, parents and community members don’t want to open their eyes to. Teens do not take the time to think about the many consequences that may result from having sex, mainly because they don’t believe it can happen to them. And that’s where this Initiative steps in. We’re not ignorant — we don’t believe "students everywhere will simply choose abstinence." And we also know teens will be teens. But if we don’t give them the information and tools to make healthy choices, then who will?

Jamie Swisher
Tara Deacon
juniors, SCOM

Smoking not harmful to business

In the Feb. 14 article "Lights out," The Breeze mentioned business might fall off as a result of a smoking ban and that these fears have been verified in places where the ban has already taken effect, such as New York. This is untrue. Since the ban has gone into effect, restaurant and bar tax receipts have gone up 8.7 percent, according to The New York Times. Overall employment numbers for restaurants and bars have gone up marginally since the ban began, as has the number of restaurant permits that have been requested or are now held. Many restaurant and bar owners also mentioned they were pleasantly surprised by the cleaner air and better social atmosphere that the smoking ban provides.
No one has the right to pollute the air of others with a product that has no positive effects and will only deteriorate the health of not only the smoker, but also those around the smoker. You have every right to do this in the privacy of your own home, but not necessarily in a public place.

Kyle Hart
freshman, history