Guest guest Posted June 27, 2005 Report Share Posted June 27, 2005 > 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 or to this EdAction e-mail service, > mail to: edaction. Put " " or " " in the > SUBJECT of the message. 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.