This is preposterous!
And in addition, these are considered "state's compelling interests", while keeping us alive and unharmed from terrorist attacks isn't. ( Not because it isn't mentioned, but because judges keep ruling against it and civil rights activists claim that the right to privacy is more important. I guess the states interests override privacy, when it's about government intrusion for no particular reason, other than exercise power, but not, when it actually really relates to safety and lives, as in survival.)
Even if "keeping us alive and unharmed from terrorist attacks" was considered a compelling interest of the state, that could still be used to justify mental screening of the general population. Certainly, the argument could be made, by those looking to justify a general mental screening scheme, that potential terrorists fit a certain psychological profile (or set of profiles), which could be detected through the program.
The problem, as I see it, is not that the definition of states compelling interest isn't inclusive enough, the problem is that it already includes too much.