Letters to the Editor

Sex education

I was shocked to see that Montana Right to Life and Montana Family Foundation opposed HB 612 yesterday. HB 612 would create funding for comprehensive sex education for Montana’s youth. The education proposed in HB 612 is so comprehensive that it includes an education component for stressing the benefits of abstinence and to help youth avoid life-threatening relationships and situations.

Yet, Montana’s anti-choice groups choose to put their blinders on and oppose anything that might provide sex education for our youth. Prevention measures like education are the most effective way to reduce unintended pregnancies; something Montana’s anti-choice groups apparently do not understand.

It seems that, once again, abortion opponents want to pretend that Montanans aren’t having sex.

A teen from Billings asked the committee, “If 42 percent of teens in Montana are already sexually active, how does an abstinence-only program help?”

Many other students stood in support of this bill asking the committee to please give them the information they need to lead healthy lives and make healthy choices. In the era of HIV/AIDS we’re not just talking about preventing unintended pregnancy, we’re talking about educating our young people to help save their lives.

Becky Dockter

1040 Strawberry Drive

Backs zoning effort

Based on current experiences we take exception to Mike Fasbender’s letter “Kill zoning bill” in the Feb. 22 Independent Record. He states “landowners need protection from overzealous governments.” How about landowners that need protection from overzealous developers? At best we get lip service from them, and then they do as they please. Fix problems they create? Say they will, but they don’t.

We totally support the Lewis and Clark County efforts to put in place meaningful, protective zoning regulations. The driving force behind the protests seems to be developer greed. It’s a sad day when greed is allowed to trump water quality and quality of life. The protestors are big on “property rights.” What about the “property rights” of landowners adversely affected by new developments?

Case in point: Take a drive to the north end of Applegate Drive and look at the new road created behind the private property signs. Notice how it is not connected to the existing road. Imagine snow melt or rain runoff coming down the newly created road ditches. Where will it go when it reaches the existing road? By the way, this road was NOT created by a farmer or rancher, but by a developer!

Fred and Barb Shepherd

8695 Applegate Drive

Hate mail

While Judy Groombridge and I may disagree on the current topic regarding Helena’s “deer,” she and anyone else certainly has the right to free expression without the threat of intimidating hate mail.

If you don’t have the “guts” to take a stand in a public forum on whatever the topic may be, then please don’t harass those who do.

Conrad Eklund

990 Strawberry Drive