Guest guest Posted August 9, 2004 Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 Here it is folks...Jr.'s New Freedom Initiative Act (this one especially scares the CRAP out of me since I have friends there).. > > http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/2004/BigBrotherPregnancy.htm > > > BIG BROTHER WATCH: > ILLINOIS launches compulsory mental health screening for children and > pregnant women > > The Leader-Chicago Bureau > <http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=17748> > > > CHICAGO -- Monday, July 19, 2004 This week, a series of public forums on > a program requiring all pregnant women and children through age 18 years > to be tested for mental health needs is being held this week in five > different locations statewide. > > One group of parents learned about the state's plans to proceed with > this program and on Monday issued an alarm asking for parents and > citizens concerned about the new program to voice their opinions at the > forums. > > " We're moving toward social training over academic training with this > program, " Larry Trainor, a Mt. Prospect parent of four children and a > contact for Citizens Commission on Human Rights, based in Los Angeles, > said today. > > " Since psychiatric involvement in education, SAT scores have gone down > for the past few decades. Evaluating mental conditions is not based on > scientific evidence, it's subjective, " he said. > > The $10 million plan for the setup of the Children's Mental Health Act > of 2003 is being considered at this week's public forums starting > Monday, July 18 in Champaign. > > Signed into law, the bill passed the Illinois General Assembly last > spring, sponsored in the House by State Representatives Julie Hamos > (D-Evanston) and Patricia Bellock (R-Westmont). State Senator Maggie > Crotty (D-Oak Forest) and Susan Garrett (D-Highwood) shepherded the > legislation through the Senate. > > The legislation passed the House with a 107 to 5 vote, and the Senate > unanimously. > > " What if they find a student has a math disorder, a reading disorder. > Would that be a mental health disorder, one that would cause the parents > to put their children with a drug for a condition they may or may not > have? " Trainor asked. > > The mental health program will develop a mental health system for " all > children ages 0-18 years, " provide for screening to " ensure appropriate > and culturally relevant assessment of young children's social and > emotional development with the use of standardized tools. " > > Also, all pregnant women will be screened for depression and thereafter > following her baby's birth, up to one year. Follow-up treatment services > will also be provided. > > Trainor said that he is trying to get parents and citizens out to voice > their opinion about the new program. > > Apparently, children's mental health will be assessed along with their > academic standards in the new proposed testing. The Illinois State Board > of Education has been given the responsibility to develop the > appropriate tests, according to last year's legislation. > > The Task Force hosting the public forums this week are to send a > recommendation to Governor Blagojevich by the end of the summer, > according to the Act (HB 2900). > > *The above is 2004 the Illinois Leader™, * > > /This is a Developing story . . . Thank you to We Hold These Truths > <http://www.whtt.org> for alerting us/ > > The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions > WHY YOU NEED TO BE CONCERNED > /Commentary by Laura Dawn Lewis > <http://www.couplescompany.com/Company/NewCompany/founders.htm> / > > If you haven't noticed yet, the majority of new laws and policies being > implemented are sold on fear through the necessity of good intentions > and as a way to protect you by allowing your government to take care of > you, as if the government is a better steward of your body, soul and > mind. Each is euphemized to seem harmless and necessary. Every time a > law is passed, you give up a portion of your freedom. This is a fact. > Some laws are necessary to allow society to function toward a common > good. Laws like murder is bad. Stealing is unjust and beating a child > unacceptable. These create the commonalities that define civilization. > > Since September 11th, 2001 our governments, state, local and federal > continue to push through resolutions, legislation and ideas directly in > contradiction to the rules we've already established for America, set > forth in our Constitution. In effect, each of these chips at our civil > liberties, forcing us further away from our values and principles. This > law in Illinois represents one such example. Without a doubt the women > pushing it through created it with the best of intentions; yet anytime > something becomes mandatory, intentions become abuses. The following are > the key reasons I believe the citizens of Illinois and the rest of us in > the United States must object to this legislation. If we allow it to > pass in one state without confronting it, others will follow. > > *1) This is profiling:* > > Segmenting society based upon subjective ideals, this opens up the > ability to create a caste system based upon the mental health results of > women and children. This means your child's future, the classes he or > she takes and the opportunities open to them could be limited simply > based upon test results at a given point in time. It segments society > into mentally healthy and various degrees of mentally unhealthy. The > potential for abuse of this information is immense. * TOP > <http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/2004/BigBrotherPregnancy.ht m#TOP>* > > *2) It is compulsory, meaning you do not have a choice:* > > The mental health of your children, yourself if female or your wife will > now be on state records. Once in state records, you now open yourself up > to abuse based upon these tests and increase the likelihood of such > information being used to screen for employment, benefits or privileges > such as a driver's license, college admissions, retirement or health care. > > *3) The state determines whether you are mentally healthy or not:* > > This is not a good idea. > > For example: A close friend of mine was thrown into an alcohol treatment > program ten years ago after a 20-minute diagnosis. Her life was falling > apart and she was sinking into deep depression, prompting the visit to > the Psychiatrist. The defining factor being she mistook the shakes one > gets from drinking too much coffee or taking diet pills for delirium > tremors, which she didn't even know existed until she arrived at the > treatment facility. The question asked, have you ever had the shakes? > She answered yes thinking of ephedrine and caffeine. She also had driven > twice after drinking and engaged in a one-night stand, answering yes to > the question, " Have you ever done something you regretted after > drinking? " She did not have a problem with alcohol, but was not allowed > to leave the treatment center until she confessed her alcoholism. At > twenty-seven, she'd only been drunk nine times in her life, all during > college. Once sent to a treatment center the insurance company required > completion and sign off by the facility before they would pay. After > thirty-days she finally made up a story and got out. * TOP > <http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/2004/BigBrotherPregnancy.ht m#TOP>* > > Her real problem was the fact she had been raped and molested several > times in her teens and had been suppressing it for twelve years, which > did come out in her first step. She lived abroad at this time and women > didn't have the same rights as they do in the United States so she was > told it was her fault and silenced, thus allowing the abuse to continue > unchecked. Sixty-eight handwritten pages delved into this. Now she knew > the problem causing her depression, anger and erratic behavior. But the > treatment center made her write a new first step because hers didn't > deal with alcohol abuse. When she insisted alcohol wasn't involved, > which it wasn't; they insisted she was in denial. Eventually she figured > it out and that first step did allow her to realize what was really > going on with her, but her employer, insurance company and doctors now > had her flagged as an alcoholic and this designation has haunted her > ever since all because she answered questions according to her > experience and they interpreted according to theirs. > > This is why mental health is subjective, not objective. The diagnosis is > only as good as the information given, the context taken and the skill > of the mental health professional. > > *4) This is a violation of your privacy. * > > Your children do not have a choice; the state decides if they are > " healthy " and channels them into programs it deems appropriate. One > example of how this may work is something I went through in high school > when I was wrongly channeled based upon aptitude and personality tests, > which I document in this essay on The Gifts of Math. > <http://www.couplescompany.com/wireservice/parenting/math.htm> With this > legislation, even adult women, you do not have a choice. By simply > becoming pregnant you give up your right to personal privacy and become > part of the system. > > *5) It is unconstitutional* > > The Bill of Rights > <http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/amendments.htm> > guarantees every American and person living in the United States the > right to be secure in their own person and protected against > unreasonable search and seizure, this includes thought police. One of > the dangers of our invading Iraq as a pre-emptive deterrent is we have > now established in our society a precedence, a Minority Report scenario > by which we engage and justify based on possibility rather than > addressing the action after it occurs. The fear of maybe drives this. > It's an irrational fear. > > *THE PRICE OF IRRATIONAL FEAR* > > Last year 43,220 people died in US traffic accidents > <http://news./news?tmpl=story & cid=1896 & u=/nm/20040428/us_nm/transpo rt_deaths_dc_2 & printer=1> > and over 195,000 deaths due to hospital error > <http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews & storyID=5790535 & se ction=news>. > Do we wage a war on prescription mix-ups, unsafe driving or medical > misdiagnosis, a real threat to Americans? No, the state of Illinois > opens up its women and children to more potential hospital mix-ups and > we wage a war on international terrorism which killed 0 people in the > United States during 2002 and 2004. It killed less than twenty in 2003 > with the DC Sniper case. We punish based upon the 'what if', rather than > holding accountability only to those who do. This mental health > screening is a personal pre-emptive strike aimed at women and children, > a collective punishment for all to find the one Andrea Yates or Eric > Harris and Dylan Klebold among us. > > In return for this " safety " , we lay our rights down and trample them > over the fear of what might happen but probably won't. This is not what > the United States is about and we're seeing more and more legislation > like this which strips us of rights, categorizes us and channels us into > different risk areas including CAPPS II > <http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Capps1.htm>, The > Trusted Traveler > <http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Capps2.htm>, Homeless > tagging with RFID' > <http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/2004/RFID.htm>s and > Mexico's doing of the same with its judicial workers > <http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040714/D83QQBP80.html>. Of course, do > not forget the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II. > > This is what happens when people become too afraid to deal with the > issues causing problems, willingly sacrificing their rights to > self-determination over to a government whose sole purpose is to protect > itself. George Washington > <http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm> warned us of this. Henry > David Thoreau > <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0486275639/qid=1075425373/ref =sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/CouplesCompany/002-0665914-7311252?v=glance & s=books & n=5 07846>warned > us of this. George Orwell > <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0451524934/qid=1050814297/sr=2-1/ref =sr_2_1/Couplescompany/102-7185658-3665745> > warned us of this. President Eisenhower > <http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm> warned us of this and people like * > Patrick J. Buchanan > <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=couplescompany & path=search-h andle-url/index=books & field-author=Buchanan%2C%20Patrick%20J.>*, > Ralph Nader <http://www.nader.org/opeds.html> and Karen Kwiatkowski > <http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski-arch.html> *continue > to warn us. Unfortunately the reality seems to fall on deaf ears. One of > the results of this is the above legislation in Illinois, no doubt one > day coming to a state near you. <End>* > > -------- -- > Also see: > > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39078 > > President Bush plans to unveil next month a sweeping mental health > initiative that recommends screening for every citizen and promotes the > use of expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs favored by > supporters of the administration. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.