Mental Health Screening in Schools Signals the End of Parental Rights
In the 2005-2006 school year, all parents will receive written
notice of new policies from your children’s schools. Many schools
will ask you to sign permission slips, allowing school counselors or “advocates”
to have conversations with your children. You will be told how your local
schools are now involved in vision and dental screenings, learning disabilities
and speech impediment screenings, and other acts of kindness, but watch
for the small print or the extra little blurb, which states that your children
will also be evaluated for emotional wellness. Watch for wording like “happiness
indicators” or “family participation.”
The fact is that our president has mandated that every American
child, age 3 through 18, is federally ordered to be evaluated for mental
health issues and to receive “enforced” treatment.
Welcome to President Bush’s New Freedom Initiative and New Freedom
Commission on Mental Health. Welcome to life-long profiling and drug addictions,
52 million students and six million adults working in schools,
according to this commission, will be tested and should flush out at least
6 million people, or shall we say new customers, who will then be mandated
to receive “treatment.” What treatment does our president’s
commission have in mind? The newest drugs in the pharmaceutical pipelines,
of course. The commission recommends “specific medications for specific
One of the state-of-the-art treatments, and most expensive,
is an implanted capsule – yes, that’s right, implanted. The
capsule delivers medication into a child’s body without the child
having to swallow a pill or the need for parental permission for dispensation.
The New Freedom Commission named the Texas Medication Algorithm
Project (TMAP) a model treatment plan. Medical algorithms are a flowchart-style
treatment indicator. If you have A symptom and B symptom, take C medication.
TMAP began with the University of Texas, big pharma, and the mental health
and corrections system in Texas. The American Psychiatric Association concurs
that TMAP is brilliant.
However, the New Freedom Initiative and Commission is a political-big
pharma marriage. Many companies who supported TMAP were also major contributors
to Bush’s re-election funds. For example, Eli Lilly manufactures olanzapine
- one of the drugs recommended in the New Freedom plan, and furthermore,
George Herbert Walker Bush was once a member of Lilly’s board of directors.
Our current President Bush appointed Lilly’s chief executive officer,
Sidney Taurel, as a member of the Homeland Security Council. Eighty-two
percent of Lilly’s .6 million in political contributions in 2000 went
to Bush and the Republican Party. Do tell…
Texas Algorithm grossed over 4 billion dollars in 2003 and
olanzapine is Eli Lilly's top selling drug. A 2003 New York Times article
by Gardiner Harris claims that 70 percent of olanzapine sales are paid for
by government agencies, such as Medicare and Medicaid. And lo and behold,
guess who is now able to bill Medicaid for health services? Public schools,
of course, as they are now under the big pharma-political profits/pay-back
umbrella once they adopt screening policies. Public schools can now be paid
to screen and drug your kids.
Now, if you ever wonder, ever again, if public-private partnerships
care about people, then you need a brain transplant. Your children are now
the legislated guinea pigs and lab rats for the pharmaceutical companies
who bought and paid for our president’s campaign. Favors are now returned
to those companies in the form of enforced, juvenile customers, their health,
and their future drug addictions.
But wait, there is more. The New Freedom Commission also calls
for enforced treatment. That means that parents have no rights to refuse
the treatment recommenced by TMAP and other drug dispensing corporate-bureaucratic
apparatuses. And as the mental health bureaucracy is also involved in this
financial game of insidious cruelty, parents and families are also to be
investigated via the result of their children’s screenings in schools.
In other words, schools are now the across-the board, or shall I say nation,
diagnostic tool for big pharma and child control.
And there’s more. The U.N. Agenda 21 has also
called for total intrusion into schools and children lives. No
more religion, no more individuality, no more real education, no more real
grades, no more real teaching, no more teacher respect for parents, and
no more truth from teachers or principals. This sounds very familiar and
very political to me. And I’ve said it before, and I will say it again:
if you are of a religious ilk and you refuse to allow your children to be
abused by our “educational” system, the stage is being set for
you to lose physical custody of your children. I suggest that you read this:
Rethinking Orphanages for the 21st Century by Richard McKenzie,
Still got your kids in public schools? Shame on you, and may
God bless your poor children and forgive you.
Parental Consent Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
HR 181 IH
H. R. 181
To prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or
mandatory mental health screening program.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 4, 2005
Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. FEENEY) introduced the following bill; which
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to
the Committees on Education and the Workforce and Ways and Means, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration
of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
To prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or
mandatory mental health screening program.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Parental Consent Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)
issued findings and recommendation against screening for suicide that corroborate
those of the Canadian Preventive Services Task Force. `USPSTF found no evidence
that screening for suicide risk reduces suicide attempts or mortality. There
is limited evidence on the accuracy of screening tools to identify suicide
risk in the primary care setting, including tools to identify those at high
(2) The 1999 Surgeon General's report on mental health admitted
the serious conflicts in the medical literature regarding the definitions
of mental health and mental illness when it said, `In other words, what
it means to be mentally healthy is subject to many different interpretations
that are rooted in value judgments that may vary across cultures. The challenge
of defining mental health has stalled the development of programs to foster
mental health (Secker, 1998). . . .'.
(3) The Surgeon General's report also says, `The diagnosis
of mental disorders is often believed to be more difficult than diagnosis
of somatic or general medical disorders since there is no definitive laboratory
test or abnormality in brain tissue that can identify the illness.'.
(4) Accurate mental health diagnosis of children is difficult
as admitted by the Surgeon General's report that says, `The science is challenging
because of the ongoing process of development. The normally developing child
hardly stays the same long enough to make stable measurements. Adult criteria
for illness can be difficult to apply to children and adolescents, when
the signs and symptoms of mental disorders are often also the characteristics
of normal development.'.
(5) Authors of the bible of psychiatric diagnosis, the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual, admit that the diagnostic criteria for mental illness
are vague, saying, `DSM-IV criteria remain a consensus without clear empirical
data supporting the number of items required for the diagnosis. . . . Furthermore,
the behavioral characteristics specified in DSM-IV, despite efforts to standardize
them, remain subjective. . . .' (American Psychiatric Association Committee
on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV 1994), pp. 1162-1163).
(6) Because of the subjectivity of psychiatric diagnosis,
it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person's disagreement with
the psychiatrist's political beliefs a mental disorder.
(7) At least one federally-funded school violence prevention
program has suggested that a child who shares his or her parent's traditional
values may be likely to instigate school violence.
(8) Despite many statements in the popular press and by groups
promoting the psychiatric labeling and medication of children, that ADD/ADHD
is due to a chemical imbalance in the brain, the 1998 National Institutes
of Health Consensus Conference said, `. . . further research is necessary
to firmly establish ADHD as a brain disorder. This is not unique to ADHD,
but applies as well to most psychiatric disorders, including disabling diseases
such as schizophrenia. . . . Although an independent diagnostic test for
ADHD does not exist. . . . Finally, after years of clinical research and
experience with ADHD, our knowledge about the cause or causes of ADHD remains
(9) There has been a precipitous increase in the prescription
rates of psychiatric drugs in children:
(A) A 300-percent increase in psychotropic drug use in 2 to
4 year old children from 1991 to 1995 (Journal of the American Medical Association,
(B) A 300-percent increase in psychotropic drug use in children
from 1987 to 1996 (Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 2003).
(C) More money was spent on psychiatric drugs for children
than on antibiotics or asthma medication in 2003 (Medco Trends, 2004).
(10) A September 2004 Food and Drug Administration hearing
found that more than two-thirds of studies of antidepressants given to depressed
children showed that they were no more effective than placebo, or sugar
pills, and that only the positive trials were published by the pharmaceutical
industry. The lack of effectiveness of antidepressants has been known by
the Food and Drug Administration since at least 2000 when, according to
the Food and Drug Administration Background Comments on Pediatric Depression,
Robert Temple of the Food and Drug Administration Office of Drug Evaluation
acknowledged the `preponderance of negative studies of antidepressants in
pediatric populations'. The Surgeon General's report said of stimulant medication
like Ritalin, `However, psychostimulants do not appear to achieve long-term
changes in outcomes such as peer relationships, social or academic skills,
or school achievement.'.
(11) The Food and Drug Administration finally acknowledged
in September 2004, that the newer antidepressants are related to suicidal
thoughts and actions in children and that this data was hidden for years.
The Food and Drug Administration had over 2000 reports of completed suicides
from 1987 to 1995 for the drug Prozac alone, which by the agency's own calculations
represent but a fraction of the suicides. Prozac is the only such drug approved
by the Food and Drug Administration for use in children.
(12) Other possible side effects of psychiatric medication
used in children include mania, violence, dependence, weight gain, and insomnia
from the newer antidepressants; cardiac toxicity including lethal arrhythmias
from the older antidepressants; growth suppression, psychosis, and violence
from stimulants; and diabetes from the newer anti-psychotic medications.
(13) Parents are already being coerced to put their children
on psychiatric medications and some children are dying because of it. Universal
or mandatory mental health screening and the accompanying treatments recommended
by the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health will only increase
that problem. Across the country, Patricia Weathers, the Carroll Family,
the Johnston Family, and the Salazar Family were all charged or threatened
with child abuse charges for refusing or taking their children off of psychiatric
(14) The United States Supreme Court in Pierce versus Society
of Sisters (268 U.S. 510 (1925)) held that parents have a right to direct
the education and upbringing of their children.
(15) Universal or mandatory mental health screening violates
the right of parents to direct and control the upbringing of their children.
(16) Federal funds should never be used to support programs
that could lead to the increased over-medication of children, the stigmatization
of children and adults as mentally disturbed based on their political or
other beliefs, or the violation of the liberty and privacy of Americans
by subjecting them to invasive `mental health screening' (the results of
which are placed in medical records which are available to government officials
and special interests without the patient's consent).
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION AGAINST FEDERAL FUNDING OF UNIVERSAL OR
MANDATORY MENTAL HEALTH SCREENING.
(a) Universal or Mandatory Mental Health Screening Program-
No Federal funds may be used to establish or implement any universal or
mandatory mental health screening program.
(b) Refusal to Consent as Basis of a Charge of Child Abuse
or Education Neglect- No Federal education funds may be paid to any local
educational agency or other instrument of government that uses the refusal
of a parent or legal guardian to provide express, written, voluntary, informed
consent to mental health screening for his or her child as the basis of
a charge of child abuse or education neglect until the agency or instrument
demonstrates that it is no longer using such refusal as a basis of a child
abuse or education neglect charge.
(c) Definition- For purposes of this Act, the term `universal
or mandatory mental health screening program'--
(1) means any mental health screening program in which a set
of individuals (other than members of the Armed Forces or individuals serving
a sentence resulting from conviction for a criminal offense) is automatically
screened without regard to whether there was a prior indication of a need
for mental health treatment; and
(A) any program of State incentive grants for transformation
to implement recommendations in the July 2003 report of the President's
New Freedom Commission on Mental Health; and
(B) any student mental health screening program that allows
mental health screening of individuals under 18 years of age without the
express, written, voluntary, informed consent of the parent or legal guardian
of the individual involved.
CODEX – THE SICKNESS Industry’s LAST STAND...
A Guest Editorial by Australian Eve Hillary
If you think that "Codex Alimentarius" is no threat
to health care than you haven't read Eve Hillary's latest article. Eve lays
it all out "down under" with pages of detailed references about
the "Codex" problem - worldwide. There is no doubt in my mind
that "Codex" is just the latest attempt by Big Pharma to control
health care worldwide. Take the time to read Eve's latest lengthy piece
on the issue. It's full of interesting ideas that will stir you up.
To read the whole article, and access the interesting links,
click on the URL below:
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.