posted May 03, 2009 03:48 PM         

(NaturalNews) Rep. Ron Paul has introduced the Parental Consent Act to protect families from mandatory "mental health screening" -- a thinly-veiled attempt by Big Pharma to drug expectant mothers and new moms with dangerous psychiatric drugs.

Here's the full text of the speech given by Ron Paul in the House of Representatives, April 30, 2009:

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Parental Consent Act. This bill forbids Federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental-health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. This bill protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children.

The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the federal and state governments work toward the implementation of a comprehensive system of mental-health screening for all Americans. The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission's report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental-health screening. Federally-funded universal or mandatory mental-health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as "ADD" or "hyperactive" and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents' wishes.

Already, too many children are suffering from being prescribed psychotropic drugs for nothing more than children's typical rambunctious behavior. According to Medco Health Solutions, more than 2.2 million children are receiving more than one psychotropic drug at one time. In fact, according to Medico Trends, in 2003, total spending on psychiatric drugs for children exceeded spending on antibiotics or asthma medication.

Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence, and weight gain. Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents' wishes if a federally-funded mental-health screener makes the recommendation.

Universal or mandatory mental-health screening could also provide a justification for stigmatizing children from families that support traditional values. Even the authors of mental-health diagnosis manuals admit that mental-health diagnoses are subjective and based on social constructions. Therefore, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person's disagreement with the psychiatrist's political beliefs a mental disorder. For example, a federally-funded school violence prevention program lists "intolerance" as a mental problem that may lead to school violence. Because "intolerance" is often a code word for believing in traditional values, children who share their parents' values could be labeled as having mental problems and a risk of causing violence. If the mandatory mental-health screening program applies to adults, everyone who believes in traditional values could have his or her beliefs stigmatized as a sign of a mental disorder. Taxpayer dollars should not support programs that may label those who adhere to traditional values as having a "mental disorder."

Madam Speaker, universal or mandatory mental-health screening threatens to undermine parents' right to raise their children as the parents see fit. Forced mental-health screening could also endanger the health of children by leading to more children being improperly placed on psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, or stigmatized as "mentally ill" or a risk of causing violence because they adhere to traditional values. Congress has a responsibility to the nation's parents and children to stop this from happening. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Parental Consent Act.

***********************************

The MOTHERS ACT is a bill before Congress, already passed by the 110th House of Representatives with only 3 "no" votes, which sets up a nation-wide "education" campaign to encourage "antidepressant" drugs and other psychiatric drugs to women who are expecting or have recently given birth.

Click on Letter to the left under the video to read more, or scroll down...

Over 9,000 individuals across the United States and around the world have signed this petition to stop The MOTHERS Act, a screening and treatment bill which will increase the number of pregnant and new mothers taking psychotropic drugs.

Organizations currently trying to stop The MOTHERS Act include:

ICFDA: International Coalition For Drug Awareness; The Law Project for Psychiatric Rights; ICSPP: International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology; NARPA: National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy; AHRP: The Alliance for Human Research Protection; COPES: Coalition Of Parents Enduring Suicide; The Elizabeth Torlakson Foundation; CHAADA: Children and Adults Against Drugging America; MADNAP: Mothers Against Drugging the Nursing And Pregnant; Consumer Wellness Center; Parents for a Label and Drug Free Education; Texans for a Safe Education; Whitaker Health Freedom Foundation; WoodyMatters; www.wildestcolts.com Supporters; www.adhdfraud.com Supporters; AbleChild; Green Body and Mind; LifeDynamics; Global Suckling Initiative; babywhys.org Supporters; The Wellness Institute

Please consider the following four points of contention with regard to this bill:

1) The MOTHERS Act will assuredly increase prescriptions for antidepressants for both postpartum and pregnant mothers. Based on the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Events Reporting System data, over the past four years the estimated number of antidepressant-caused infant deaths and injuries was as follows:
· 4,360 babies born with serious or life-threatening birth defects
· 4,160 babies born with potentially fatal heart defects or heart disease
· 2,900 spontaneous abortions
· 3,000 premature births

2) New Jersey's 2006 Postpartum Depression law requires medical providers to screen women for mental disorders. Under the impetus of this new law, some New Jersey women were forcibly taken to hospitals in police cars from their homes or doctor's offices for simply mentioning depressed feelings or calling the state's PPD hotline (See full text of the Star-Ledger article at http://www.netpowwow.com/unite011109/ppdcriminals.htm).

3) The namesake of the bill is Melanie Blocker Stokes, a mother who jumped to her death from the 12th story of a Chicago hotel at 3 ˝ months postpartum, following months of treatment including four hospitalizations, at least four different drug cocktails, and electroshock therapy. Only after she was treated with drugs documented by the FDA to cause suicidal ideation did she jump out of that window.

4) Numerous victims have spoken out against this bill, including many who currently have pending lawsuits against drug companies for deaths and birth defects. In addition, there are literally thousands of antidepressant birth defects and suicide lawsuits pending. States are suing drug manufacturers for illegal marketing of psychotropic drugs, and the State of Alaska is being sued for drugging children in state care. If the Federal Government sponsors another drugging program, it is simply asking for lawsuits to be filed, as more mothers are injured and more babies killed.

What could possibly justify the risks that The MOTHERS Act poses to unborn babies and their mothers? Please speak out and ask the 111th Congress not to be the group to pass this bill to increase infant deaths via fatal birth defects and unwanted, drug-induced spontaneous abortions. Considering the many lives of helpless unborn babies at stake, we must all UNITE to kill this legislation.
http://www.uniteforlife.org/

********************

Dare I voice my opinion that Melanie Stokes jumped to her death **BECAUSE** of all the anti-depressant/anti-psychotic drugs in her system??

I have a personal experience to relate as to the efficacy of SSRI's (anti-depressants). A woman at my work was involved in a terrible car accident. It seems a depressed teenage boy (on SSRI's) targeted her large SUV and drove his car at 55mph head on into hers. He was killed, she was severely injured.

Are we so CERTAIN we want to mandate these drugs for anyone who is deemed depressed??
Are we so CERTAIN that drugs are the answer to every adverse situation or every negative emotion in our lives??

posted May 03, 2009 11:15 PM         

Are there any concrete examples of the kinds of screening this would encompass? For example, I'm about 31 weeks along and every time I go to a doctor's visit I have to fill out a mandatory survey about my "feelings". Am I sad? Do I feel hopeless? Blah blah blah. And there are levels, like on a 5 point scale (Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, All the time) and there is a certain amount of "points" you must score for a more indepth "talk" with your doctor about your mental health.

I do find it an annoying thing to have to do but then I also think it's pointless because I can't imagine anyone is going to put down anything that's going to lead to that "talk". No one is supervising you while you do it, for example. There's no one actually evaluating you or asking you questions. I'd rather not waste the time filling it out but I'm not bothered enough to protest it.

However, if this "Mothers Act" goes beyond that ... like, making me sit in front of some random person who is asking me these things and taking notes on my behavior as though it is already a psychological screening ... then to hell with that. Seriously, from the looks of it and what I've been able to understand, this is way more than filling out a stupid questionaire unsupervised.

And, btw, don't you have the right to NOT take drugs? I mean, isn't it my choice? Seriously, I've never been treated for a mental health disorder so I'm actually asking ... if xyz person decides you have a mental health problem, do you have a choice to refuse medication? And does that choice go beyond "take this drug or end up institutionalized"?

posted May 04, 2009 12:02 PM         

And what if taking drugs goes against ones religious beliefs? Will that matter?

Right now, you cannot be forced to take medication. It sounds like that might change at least, that's what they are moving towards.

One more reason why I do not want children.
I'd flip my lid if someone told me it was mandatory that they be injected with drugs or had to take them for what they deemed to be mental illness.

quote:

---

God Help Us All
God, please save us from our own government and the Pharmaceutical companies who apparently control it

---

posted May 05, 2009 04:34 PM         

not sure how my kid will do it as she works two jobs as it is and goes to school spring and summer semesters trying to get through it faster.