ations and coping skills, and the emotional aspects of sexual relationships.
Side B: Many of the same arguments presented above can be used to justify the distribution of condoms in schools. Cutbacks in school sex education programs donÆt give children a sufficient background to make important decisions at a time in their lives when they are emotionally overcharged. They need to be protected. The kind of books published to instruct teenagers in safe sex practices and give them a basic sex education are rudimentary at best (Nourse; Stoppard). They tell how to apply condoms, with diagrams, and admonish teens that abstinence is the safest way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, but in a manner that is hardly likely to be persuasive to todayÆs teens. The Los Angeles Board of Education voted back in 1992 to distribute condoms on high school campuses (Jones). They joined several urban school districts, including New York City, Philadelphia and San Francisco in the venture. Consent forms were sent home with students giving parents the option of not allowing their teenager to receive condoms and if they were not returned, it was assumed that the school could distribute condoms to the student.
The task force recommended the school distribute condoms to junior and senior high school students, and provide information on AIDS (Jones). Speakers at the meeting at which the vote was taken included several teenagers and parents with AIDS who said that at a time when 54 percent of teens were known to be sexually active, it was critical for schools to offer information and options to save lives. One stated that if there had been adequate education about AIDS and instruction on proper condom use, she would not then be dying of the disease. Along with the distribution program, mandatory training sessions were approved for all certified, classified and volunteer staff to familiarize them with HIV/AIDS infection. S...