In the debate over teaching sex education in schools, Rush H. Limbaugh III and Anna Quindlen both wrote an article on their views on this issue. Limbaugh feels that teaching sex education and passing out condoms in school will only encourage kids to engage in sex more often. But, on the other hand, Quindlen feels the opposite on this issue. She feels that teaching safe sex and passing out condoms to kids that engage in sexual activity is the best way to protect them from sexually transmitted diseases. Both writers have good points but Quindlen makes a stronger argument on this issue. .
A passage in Rush H. Limbaugh III book, The Way Things Ought to be, he argues that condoms should not be distributed in schools. Limbaugh states that "The logic and motivation behind this country's mad dash to distribute free condoms in our public schools is ridiculous and misguided." Limbaugh feels that the idea that, "kids are going to do it anyway, you can't stop them" is the wrong way to be thinking. He thinks distribution of condoms is a slippery slope leading to a scenario where we have disease- free hookers in the Safe Sex Centers. Limbaugh believes that distributing condoms in schools will only make kids want to have sex more. He claims that condom destitution will give a false assumption that condoms will protect from all STDs. Limbaugh ends his passage by stating that "The worst part of all this is the lie that condoms really protect against AIDS", when the condom failure rate is 20 percent. .
In a column from the New York Times, appearing on January 8, 1994, Anna Quindlen gives her view on the condom distribution in schools in an article titled "A Pyrric Victory." Quindlen starts her article by giving a hypothetical example of a young boy who is having a hard time urinating due to the fact that he might have a sexually transmitted disease. By playing on emotion, she proclaims that condoms should be distributed to the kids due to that fact that they are going to have sex no matter who tells them not to.
