Mike Long has been working a long time at convincing teenagers not to have sex until they are married. The Durham native, who has written a book on the subject, visited Camden County recently to talk to students and parents about abstinence — something he's been doing since the 1980s. Yet, he admits that the word "abstinence" isn't used when speaking to students. He's learned that it's not an effective way to teach teenagers responsible behavior.

We think the same could be said for the federal government's abstinence-only sex education program.

Nevertheless, Long deserves a pat on the back. What he teaches makes sense. Youth should be encouraged to wait. That's a better choice for them, and it leaves fewer issues for the public to manage — and pay for.

We agree that supporting abstinence as a parent or teacher or as a religious principle is the right thing — but it's not the only thing. And teaching abstinence as the only form of sex education in schools, aside from being unproductive, can be harmful to teenagers.

Consider, for example, that according to recent statistics, 60 percent of current high school seniors say they have had sex at least once. What benefit to them is the abstinence lesson now?

That's why we're strongly opposed to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services federally-funded abstinence-only education curriculum. The policy was drafted more than a decade ago and has been urged on schools ever since. This misguided venture grew out of even more misguided views on the subject of teenagers and sex.

And after 10 years and $1.5 billion wasted, the program has had absolutely nothing positive to show. A report quietly released by Health and Human Services last month concludes no measurable difference in sexual activities and attitudes among students exposed to the abstinence education and those who were not.

Long before HHH's own study proved it, nearly every major medical organization in the country was on record opposing the focus of abstinence as the sole source of sex education for teenagers. But there are worse things than years and money wasted.

While teen pregnancy is down, health statistics show about 800,000 teen pregnancies in the United States each year. In 2005, there were about 18,000 teen pregnancies among 15- to 19-year-olds in North Carolina, which has the ninth highest teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. for that age group — and the nation's highest birthrate among Hispanic teens. Also, costs associated with teen pregnancy, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, run to $312 million annually in this state.

As this federal policy failure has become apparent, many states have dumped or are considering dumping the mandate. A bill currently in the N.C. House would expand the schools' curriculum to include all aspects of sex education — including abstinence. It would insure accurate information about sexually transmitted diseases, contraceptives and the biology of human reproduction. If approved, practical sex education could be restored to our schools.

The price for that, of course, is that the federal government may pull funding earmarked for the abstinence-only curriculum. So be it. Our schools must prepare students for the world they live in now and the one they'll face in the future. That means providing practical health information — information that might prevent a teenager from getting pregnant or from getting AIDS — in addition to a strong plea to abstain from sex until marriage. There's no harm in including both. Never has been.