Homestead mailing list

["Lynda" <lurine AT softcom.net>]

 Many had expressed concerned about the mandatory screenings from birth
> and how that would have affected homeschoolers. Unfortunately, this bill
> failed.
>
> EdAction
> 105 Peavey Road, Suite 116
> Chaska, MN 55318
> 952-361-4931
> http://edaction.org
> June 27, 2005
>
> Paul amendment against mental health screening fails
> Amendment to federal appropriations bill, HR 3010
>
> "Pretty soon we'll have a syndrome for short, fat Irish guys with a
> Boston accent, and I'll be mentally ill." ("Mental health is the new
> normal", St. Paul Pioneer Press, June 23, 2005)
>
> Pharmaceutical industry profits won out against individual and parental
> rights last Friday when the Paul amendment that would have prohibited
> federal taxpayer funding for new universal mental health screening
> failed in a roll call vote on the floor of the U.S. House of
> Representatives. Congressman and physician Ron Paul introduced the
> amendment against government-sponsored and
> pharmaceutical-industry-supported universal mental health screening
> programs. The Labor/Health and Human Services/Education appropriations
> bill, HR 3010, was then passed with $26 million for "state incentive
> transformation grants" to fund implementation of the New Freedom
> Commission's recommendations for universal mental health screening and
> psychiatric drug treatment. This is the same amount requested by the
> President in his budget.
>
> The Paul amendment simply stated:
>
> "None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to create or
> implement any new universal mental health screening program."
>
> Ninety-three Republicans were joined by four Democrats in supporting the
> Paul amendment. In Minnesota, Gutkneckt, Kennedy, and Kline voted yes.
> Ramstad, McCollum, Oberstar, Peterson, and Sabo voted with the
> pharmaceutical companies. Thirty-two members abstained. Thirty-two
> members abstained. (See the voting record at
> http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll317.xml.)
>
> Please use this vote to educate your Member of Congress on this issue.
> We urge you to please thank the Members who voted yes, especially if
> they are your own Representatives. If your Member voted "No" to the Paul
> amendment, please contact him or her immediately to express your
> displeasure. Provide them with background information that is available
> on our website. Press your Representative to understand the urgency of
> this issue. Ask him or her to support HR 181, The Parental Consent Act
> which will be another opportunity to address your concerns.
>
> Urge your Member of Congress to join the 44 other Members in
> co-sponsoring HR 181. Many prominent organizations have so far joined in
> supporting this legislation or expressed concerns about child mental
> health screening, labeling and drugging. None of them take money from
> drug companies or other special interests. Included are:
>
> Able Child
> Alliance for Human Research Protection (www.ahrp.org)
> American Association of Physicians and Surgeons
> American Policy Center
> Concerned Women for America
> Eagle Forum
> EdWatch / EdAction
> Family Research Council
> Free Congress Foundation
> Gun Owners of America
> Home School Legal Defense Association
> International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (ICSPP)
> Libertarian Party
> National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
> Psych Rights
> Republican Liberty Caucus
> The Liberty Committee
> We Hold these Truths
>
> As you might expect, well-funded lobbyists for those pushing universal
> mental health screening pulled out all the stops and demaoguery . One
> organization that has received millions of dollars from the
> pharmaceutical industry, for example, sent out the following false
> information:
>
> "Supporters of this amendment claim that early screening would undermine
> parental rights, when in fact, parents will always have the right to
> control whether their child is screened or given services." [Children
> and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder - CHADD]
>
> See "Medicating Aliah" (access code MJZL6Y) for an example of how false
> that statement is. Testimony from Cong. Paul (Texas) during the debate
> on the House floor is as follows:
>
> "This does not deny any funds for any testing of those individuals who
> may show signs of mental illness. It only denies funding for any
> universal, read by many as mandatory, which is a bit of overkill as far
> as I am concerned. There is $26 million in this bill for these programs.
> Eight States have already been involved, and three more have applied for
> grants.
> "The main reason why I oppose this is I think there is a lot of
> overtreatment of young people with psychotropic drugs. This has been
> going on for a lot of years, and there are a lot of bad results, and
> once we talk about universal testing of everybody, and there is no age
> limit, matter of fact, in the recommendation by the New Freedom
> Commission, there is a tendency for overdiagnosis and overuse of
> medication. There are as many complications from overuse of medication
> as there is with prophylactic treatment.
> 'There is no evidence now on the books to show that the use of this
> medication actually in children reduces suicide. Matter of fact, there
> are studies that do suggest exactly the opposite. Children on
> psychotropic drugs may well be even more likely to commit suicide. It
> does not mean that no child ever qualifies for this, but to assume there
> is this epidemic out here that we have to test everybody is rather
> frightening to me.
> "Matter of fact, when the State gets control of children, they tend to
> overuse medications like this. Take, for instance, in Texas, 60 percent
> of the foster children are on medication. In Massachusetts, it is close
> to 65 percent. In Florida, 55 percent of the children in foster home
> care are receiving these kinds of medication.
> "Once again, I want to make the point that this does not deny funding
> for individual children who show signs that they may need or they have a
> problem and need to be tested. It is just to make sure that this is not
> universal and not be mandatory and that parental rights are guarded
> against and that the parent is very much involved"
>
> Rep. Regula (Ohio) inserted the same distortions that are being
> aggressively circulated by the special interests:
>
> "The sponsor mentions $26 million, and let me point out that the funds
> provided in this bill that respond to recommendations put forward in the
> final report of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health,
> ``Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America,''
> go toward State incentive grants for transformation to support the
> development of comprehensive State mental health plans, and has
> absolutely no funding included for universal mental health screening. So
> the $26 million has nothing to do with this amendment as far as
> universal mental health screening."
>
> Rep. Obey (Wisconsin) continued the false statements:
>
> "there are no plans for anyone in the Federal Government to conduct
> universal screening, and there are no funds in this bill for any such
> purpose."
>
> Rep. Murphy (Pennsylvania) joined in with the lies of organized
> psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry:
>
> "This amendment is another witch hunt against mental illness and its
> passage will only serve to further stigmatize mental illness."
>
> Rep. Paul responded:
>
> "Let me tell Members, people in this country have been well informed
> about this, and they do not like this program. I also would like to
> quote from the New Freedom Commission ...They never say `'mandatory,''
> but they never say ``voluntary' 'What they say is `'universal.'' How can
> you have something universal if you are not going to be testing
> everybody? Also from the Freedom Commission, it should be for consumers
> of all ages, screen for mental disorders in primary health care across
> the life span. These are the guidelines of the New Freedom Commission,
> as well as saying the schools must be partners in the mental health care
> of our children.
>
> Rep. Regula continued the distortion, and he denied the moves by states
> such as Illinois and Minnesota to do mental health screening of children
> based on the New Freedom Commission by saying:
>
> "There is no universal mental health screening in this bill. Secretary
> Leavitt has made it clear there is nothing like this under
> consideration. It is an amendment that is not needed because it
> addresses a problem that does not exist."
>
> Rep. Paul:
>
> "as a physician, having practiced medicine for well over 30 years, let
> me tell Members, there is a crisis in this country. There is a crisis
> with illegal drugs, but there is a crisis in this country with an
> overuse of all drugs, especially in the area of psychiatry.
> Psychiatrists, if they are honest with you, will tell you that diagnoses
> are very subjective. It is not like diagnosing appendicitis. It is very,
> very subjective. If you push on this type of testing, the more testing
> you have, let me guarantee it, the more drugs you will have. Sure, there
> are mental diseases. I am not excluding any of this when a person has
> true mental illness, but I am talking about the overuse of Ritalin and
> Prozac and many of these drugs that are pushed on these kids.
> "Let me tell Members, there have been some real problems with families
> who will not let their kids go on drugs because the schools pressure
> them to. They have been charged with child abuse, and threatened with
> taking their children away because they will not be put on these drugs.
> That is the kind of abuse I am calling to Members' attention, and that
> is why you need to vote for this amendment. It does not change anything.
> It does not deny anybody testing and treatment. All it does is say
> universal testing of everybody of all ages in this country is not the
> direction that we want to go. Please vote for my amendment. "
>
> "Medicating Aliah" (access code MJZL6Y) could have been cited here as
> just one example of what children and parents face. The Paul amendment
> to HR 3010 would have protected both children and adults from invasive
> screening that is based on vague, subjective, and politically motivated
> criteria that will result in labeling with dubious diagnoses. These
> diagnoses will follow people for the rest of their lives and will result
> in drugging with ineffective and potentially lethal medications. This
> vote was about freedom of thought, as well as civil and parental rights.
>
> Chelsea Rhodes is another example of a child who was labeled with two
> different psychiatric disorders based on a computerized mental health
> screening called TeenScreen, given in her school without her parents
> knowledge or consent. Her parents, with the aid of the Rutherford
> Institute, are suing the school district and the mental health provider
> that did the screening.
>
> We can see where this is going when Harvard and the National Institutes
> of Mental Health make thescientifically unsupportable claim that more
> than 50% of all Americans will be mentally ill during their lifetime.
> Even psychiatric experts such as the former chairman of psychiatry at
> John Hopkins found that idea very difficult to swallow. The debate is
> raging within the psychiatric profession over the boundaries between
> mental health and mental illness. "Pretty soon," Dr. Paul McHugh said,
> "we'll have a syndrome for short, fat Irish guys with a Boston accent,
> and I'll be mentally ill."
>
> The FDA has held hearings on the use of antidepressants and children.
> The FDA issued its strongest black box warning after discovering that
> information on the lack of effectiveness and dangerous side effects of
> these medications was concealed from physicians and the public,
> sometimes for years. Yet organized psychiatry is trying to get those
> warnings removed, because they would rather conceal the dangers to
> children than give up the profits.
>
> We need your involvement by informing Congress that you expect them to
> protect the rights of parents and the health of our children from
> overbearing government and mental health providers. Especially over the
> July break, contact your Member of Congress. Support HR 181. Please
> continue to use our e-action alert for HR 181 and pass it on to your
> networks of contacts. Additional background information is also
> available there, as well as on the EdAction website. Thank you.
>
> Listen to the archived broadcast of a June 20th live radio interview with
> Congressman Ron Paul, Dr. Karen Effrem, and Mr. Allen Jones
> http://www.mindmattersradio.com/
>
> These three authorities on universal mental health legislation discuss
> the ethical and scientific problems raised by screening children for
> mental health. They discuss the New Freedom Commission report of 2003,
> its influence on current federal legislation, and the role of the
> pharmaceutical industry in plans to screen the U.S. population for
> mental health.problems.
>
> Order the Mental Health Screening Briefing Book
>
> Your case for discussing these issues can be made stronger if you
> purchase the Briefing Book now available from EdWatch that contains hard
> copies of nine articles by Dr. Karen Effrem, Dr. Dennis Cuddy, Penny
> Pullen of Illinois, and Karen Hayes of Illinois. A CD-rom contains all
> of those articles, plus a Power Point presentation with evidence to
> bolster your case, and excerpts of a radio debate between Dr. Effrem and
> a member of the New Freedom Commission.
>
> To order the "Universal Health Screening" Briefing Book
>
> • from the EdWatch shopping cart.
> • with credit card by telephone (952-361-4931), or
> • by mail, send $20 with a request for the "Universal Health Screening"
> packet, check made to EdWatch. Send to: EdWatch, 105 Peavey Road, Suite
> 116, Chaska, MN, 55318
>
> EdAction is entirely user-supported. The continuation of our work is
> dependent upon individual contributors. EdAction is a political action
> committee. Contributions are not tax deductible. We promote the work of
> EdWatch. If you want to ensure that our work continues, contact us here.
> If you want to subscribe or unsubscribe to this EdAction e-mail service,
> mail to: edaction AT lakes.com. Put "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the
> SUBJECT of the message.