Posted on 09/16/2004 6:49:53 AM PDT by jmc813
WASHINGTON DC -- Texas Congressman Ron Paul's attempt to squelch federal funding for mental health screening of school children failed last week in Congress with a vote of 95 for and 315 against.
Four of the 95 amendment supporters were Illinois Republican House members Judy Biggert, Phil Crane, Don Manzullo and Tim Johnson.
Paul's amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill (HR5006) was an attempt to impede implementation of President Bush’s New Freedom Commission recommendations, a program that authorizes and funds state programs for mental health screening of school children.
In a “Dear Colleague" letter Republican Congressman Paul sought support to stop the funding by warning Congress that federally funded universal mental health screening in public schools would lead to more children being labeled and forced into taking psychotropic drugs. He warned that the federal program allowed drugs to be prescribed even when parents withheld permission.
Paul wrote in the letter, “As you know, psychotropic drugs are increasingly prescribed for children who have shown nothing more than children’s typical rambunctious behavior.”
Children have been harmed by psychotropic drug side effects and parents who refuse them have been charged with child abuse, Paul said in the letter. He urged his fellow House members support in order to ensure that more children would not “spend their wonder years on state-approved psychotropic drugs.”
Dr. Karen Effrem, pediatrician from Minnesota, said she had only three days to speak to the federal lawmakers about the pending vote. Effrem told IllinoisLeader.com that she was pleased with 95 supporting the amendment, but did not believe the Senate would consider the legislation.
Groups such as Eagle Forum, Concerned Women for America, Gun Owners of America, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology registered their opposition to a program requiring the universal screening of children's mental health.
Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy (D-MA), an opponent to the amendment sent also sent a “Dear Colleague” letter urging Congress to “Choose Science Not Stigma.”
Kennedy's letter asserted that supporters of the amendment did not want screening for mental illnesses “because then we would not have to treat them."
The letter quoted the Surgeon General’s Report on Mental Health that encourages drug therapy for behavior disorders, saying “A range of efficacious psychosocial and pharmacologic treatments exists for many mental disorders in children, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depression, and the disruptive disorders.”
Dr. Effrem, who has been a vocal opponent to widespread use of psychotropic drugs for children, argues Kennedy's point by quoting an earlier Surgeon General Report which cautioned in 1999, “[P]sychostimulants do not appear to achieve long-term changes in outcomes such as peer relationships, social or academic skills, or school achievement."
Paul's amendment would have thwarted the development of Illinois' Children’s Mental Health Partnership’s Preliminary Plan, which has just come to Illinois parents' attention during a recent week of public hearings.
Illinois is the first state prepared to fully implement the federal recommendations, and the mental health partnership’s final draft proposal to overhaul the state's mental health system is due on Governor Blagojevich's desk at the end of September.
I have heard that young people who take drugs such as ritalin cannot enter the military; does anyone know if this is true? (I may need to do some research on this, sorry y'all just thinkin out loud) gone googlin'
Mental health screening is a smoke screen. If the child is a Christian, he/she must be insane and needs to be "deprogrammed".
ok, I found the answer to my own question (is this akin to talking to yourself?)
www.dbpeds.org/section/fall98/adhd_military.html
www.resultsproject.net/schoolsay.html
www.halexandria.org/dword057.html
Save me a click or two and tell me the results of your search, please?
The best way to handle this is not to get hung up in the perceived morality of the situation, a difficult proposition at best given all of the propaganda.
When in doubt, defer to the axiom, "KEEP THE DAMNED GOVERNMENT OUT OF, AND AWAY FROM, MY FAMILY!!!"
That means I am against CINO Bush-Administration privacy grab in an effort to appear "compassionate and leftist" for the purpose of garnering more votes...wishful thinking.
2004: GO BUSH!
2008 onward--> GO CONSTITUTION PARTY AND ANTHONY PEROUTKA.
Either we will force the Republican party back to where it should be on moral, Constitutional, and sovereignty issues, or it will soon see the results of its folly: permanently lost voters in the form of Christian conservatives.
cc WhiteHouseJoeBartonKayBaileyHutchisonetaladinfinitum [change or lose next time around]
Wow, that second link is pretty scary. If GW is supporting this just to make a buck for the pharmeceutical companies than my opinion of him has dropped a couple thousand notches.
Further proof that at least 315 legislators are sucking on Big Pharma's teet, and in their pocket.
Does this mean they will identify all those little serial killers and child molestors in-training? If not, can we sue? < /sarcasm >
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.