I think it's ironic that Rebekah Schilperoort's article entitled "Parental consent not needed" was printed in the same edition (July 19, 2006) as a reader's letter to the editor complimenting Ms. Schilperoort for being "unbiased and informative" in her writing. I for one did not find the article to be unbiased at all. Informative? Perhaps, but obviously not its intended purpose.

If Ms. Schilperoort is troubled by the fact that school districts have partnerships with healthcare providers and county public health services, why doesn't she just say so instead of disguising it as an "unwelcome revelation for one West Seattle mother?" These services are in place to help children, not subvert parental control and certainly not to teach teens how to get pregnant, do drugs, join gangs, or become alcoholics! Come on.

I've taught in the Seattle Public Schools for three decades and can absolutely attest to the fact that there are many varieties of homes that children come from, (some, bless their hearts, even without homes). I've witnessed various shifts in populations, learning styles, individual needs, cultural clashes, medical and nutritional voids and certainly degrees of family support. I, for one, am grateful to the school district for providing needy adolescents with the necessary information, assistance, and support they don't get from "home."

I can't imagine why nurturing parents who have imparted their own values an mores to their children would feel threatened by these services that reach out t some teenagers in need. We should be thankful they have a place to go.

Yes, it's controversial, but also constitutional (the right to confidential contraceptive services) as the article states. Will this be yet another attack on our country's Constitution? Haven't we had enough of that? I say let's count our blessings. Let's think of ways to bring us together, not tear us apart.

Jill M. Schultz

Charlestown