By Sarah Audelo
USA Today, August 8, 2007

I am extremely disappointed with the commentary on abstinence programs by Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association ("Abstinence works," Opposing view, Sex education debate, July 30).

Huber grossly misrepresents the "holistic" abstinence-only-until-marriage programs when she writes that "information about contraception is provided, but always within the context of abstinence as the healthiest choice."

In Texas, a state with one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the USA, abstinence-only programs could not be further from the "holistic" approach. The health textbooks my students use make no mention of condoms or contraception, not even in regard to failure rates. The textbook does, however, suggest rather interesting methods of teen pregnancy prevention, such as teens getting enough sleep so they can make good choices.

Huber's use of the recent Zogby poll also is troubling. The poll questions did not differentiate "abstinence education" from "abstinence-only education."

Many parents want their children to learn about abstinence, but they also want them to learn about contraceptives and condoms to protect them from unintended pregnancy and HIV.

What exactly does Huber support? If she supports abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, why not just say so? Why hide behind a "holistic" approach that does not exist in these programs?

As a teacher, I want my teenage students to delay sexual activity until they are older. But I also know that is not my decision. Some will abstain; others won't. I think they deserve to have the necessary information and tools to make informed decisions about their lives.