Thinking back to the glory days of the Clinton years, some may remember Jocelyn Elders, then surgeon general. She told conservatives that abstinence education was a waste of money because teens are going to have sex. It’s in the best interests of public health that they know about sexually transmitted diseases and how to prevent them, she said.

Of course, the latest medical statistics proved her right. They revealed last week that the great majority of teens are not abstaining from sex. Some are delaying intercourse by, on average, 18 months. But the majority have discovered oral sex (some anal sex, too). Most distressing is that those that have had intercourse after pledging abstinence are more likely not to use condoms.

Abstinence-only education is illegal in California. In 2003, the Legislature passed the Comprehensive Sex Education Act, which limits the role “abstinence” can play in school programs. The law specifically requires schools to provide comprehensive sex education programs so that students will develop healthy attitudes concerning gender roles, sexual orientation, dating, marriage and family.

The new law departs from the past. Reacting to the AIDS crisis, religious conservatives passed laws in the ’80s that required teachers to emphasize “abstinence until heterosexual marriage.” That wasn’t enough for the federal government. To receive federal grants for sex ed, states must teach nothing else but abstinence. California wisely rejected the grants.

Certainly teaching the benefits of restraining from sex is fine. But that cannot be the dominant theme. To the extent “abstinence until marriage” is grounded upon a Biblical belief that one must be pure to marry and then must only engage in procreative sex in marriage, abstinence as a “way of life” entangles the state with an endorsement of religious dogma.

To the extent that abstinence education tells students that condoms have a 20-percent failure rate is false, deceptive and misleading. Condoms have a 99-percent success rate when used properly. Because abstinence educators disparage condoms, there are teens who don’t use condoms. They believe condoms will not prevent STDs and pregnancy, so why bother with them. And, not surprisingly, HIV transmission is high among teens. And, as I’ve mentioned before, “abstinence until heterosexual marriage” creates a hostile learning place for gay and lesbian students, who cannot legally marry.

So this brings us to San Diego, where school districts in Grossmont and Coronado brought abstinence advocate Pam Stenzel to warn parents and teens about the dangers of failing to abstain. Stenzel, the founder of Enlighten Communications, refers to herself as a former pregnancy crisis counselor. She emphasizes abstinence before marriage and has produced videos such as “Time to Wait for Sex” and “Sex Has a Price Tag.”

Lionel Sanchez reports in the Union-Tribune that Stenzel’s presentation focused on the limited effectiveness of condoms, particularly in preventing some sexually transmitted diseases. What the U-T didn’t report I found on the Iowa Christian Coalition’s Web site. Stenzel doesn’t list her sex ed credentials on her Web site.

California law requires that sex ed instructors must have knowledge of the most recent medically accurate research on human sexuality, pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Pam has a degree in psychology from Liberty University (that’s Jerry Falwell’s school). That doesn’t qualify her as an instructor under California law. Her pregnancy crisis counseling career? She most likely talked women out of abortion, which is fine. That does not qualify her to be a sex ed instructor.

The Legislature specifically intended to prohibit schools from having religious zealots (draped as sex ed experts) appear at schools to condemn anything other than sex inside marriage. Stenzel is a stealth minister. California law also requires districts to give students accurate facts about “the effectiveness and safety of all federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved methods of reducing the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases.” Telling students condoms are not effective is false and illegal.

Stenzel (and school officials) claim that her program has no religious messages in it, yet she has a religious agenda. School officials try to deflect criticism by suggesting that parent and student groups sponsor and pay for Stenzel’s visits. They argue that abstinence is a part of sex ed. But that’s a bit disingenuous. Would Grossmont invite The Center’s chief executive officer, Delores Jacobs, for an assembly on issues facing the GLBT community? Not likely.

The Grossmont High School Board is composed of five religious conservatives who are trying to defy state law designed to protect the health of teens. It’s time for the district attorney and the state superintendent for public instruction to act.