The writer of the March 11 article in The Union on sex-ed is well known in the community for his very weird take on such issues as politics, religion, morality, etc. But his March 11 letter is more weird than usual. He has, in his mind, relegated his six daughters to the choice of having pre-marital sex for a "well rounded" (as in pregnant?) look at life. They must surely be as proud of him, as father, as he is of them.

Re: abstinence before marriage, he is surely the one in denial, saying that approach is "unproven" because all "teenagers are going to have sex." Quite the contrary, on two counts: all teenagers are not going to have pre-marital sex, but mostly those so relegated by either parents, teachers or peers. The other count is that abstinence does work every time: no STDs, no unexpected pregnancies, no emotional disasters, no family fractures.

Yes, but, "pictures of aborted fetuses and of herpes on genitals" should not only cause them to consider the consequences of their choices, but also to strengthen their personal resolve to remain chaste, a resolve which should be supported, not undermined, by their parents, counselors, nor organizations like Planned Parenthood.

Bill Struck

Grass Valley