NEWS: Mandatory Mental Health Screening Challenged in House

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a bill, HR 181, which proposes to prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental health screening program. He had previously tried and failed to implement an amendment to the mental health screening initiative that would have at least required parental consent for any such screening.



1984, anyone? Many might (and probably will) argue that early mental health screening is a "good thing", but I would urge everyone to consider all the implications. Simply reading the Findings section of the bill itself (see link above) should suffice (it isn't a very lengthy bill); to highlight just one small example:

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 speculative."

One thing seems strange: in a previous ATS post (referenced below), I reported on that President Bush had signed legislation banning schools from requiring parents to drug children for classroom or behavioral problems. If nothing else, there appears to be a distinct lack of "joined-up thinking".

I was unable to find any reporting on this in the mainstream press. The link below leads to a USA Today page allowing people to e-mail Bush and their State representatives on this issue.

Related News Links:
ssl.capwiz.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">https:

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
NEWS: Bush Signs Legislation Prohibiting Forced Medication of Children


[edit on 5-2-2005 by Banshee]

So let me get this straight. Bush wants mandatory mental health screening for all the nations childeren period - I fully disagree with this. Yet he prohibits schools from forcing parents to medicate their childeren - I agree with this.

If Bush gets his way, and the mandatory screenings are authorized, wont they (BushCo) just be the ones forcing the parents to medicate their childeren?

As I understand it, if Bush & Co get their way, all children will be "screened" for mental health problems. ALL children, without consent from parents. Presumably, if the "experts" then decide they need medication, the parents' rights will kick back in.

Very bizzare, no matter how you slice it.

And on the conspiracy front: some belive that the data collected can and will be used to "track" people throughout their lives, perhaps prevent some from holding security clearances, adpoting children, whatever.

Firstly, you get a big thumbs up for posting this!

He's been making noise about this issue for some time now, this is from Paul's weekly column "Texas Straight Talk" during the week of September, 13th. Forcing Kids into a Mental Health Ghetto:

The greater issue, however, is not whether youth mental health screening is appropriate. The real issue is whether the state owns your kids. When the government orders "universal" mental health screening in schools, it really means "mandatory." Parents, children, and their private doctors should decide whether a child has mental health problems, not government bureaucrats. That this even needs to be stated is a sign of just how obedient our society has become toward government. What kind of free people would turn their children's most intimate health matters over to government strangers? How in the world have we allowed government to become so powerful and arrogant that it assumes it can force children to accept psychiatric treatment whether parents object or not?

Parents must do everything possible to retain responsibility and control over their children's well-being. There is no end to the bureaucratic appetite to rule every aspect of our lives, including how we raise our children. Forced mental health screening is just the latest of many state usurpations of parental authority: compulsory education laws, politically-correct school curricula, mandatory vaccines, and interference with discipline through phony "social services" agencies all represent assaults on families. The political right has now joined the political left in seeking the de facto nationalization of children, and only informed resistance by parents can stop it. The federal government is slowly but surely destroying real families, but it is hardly a benevolent surrogate parent.

There's a reason why this man ran unopposed in his last election. That sums up pretty much exactly how I feel about this issue, and several like it.

See also:

Mental Health Screening for Kids- Part II

Sign the petition to support HR 181.

[edit on (2/2/0505 by PistolPete]

I never even heard of Ron Paul before this...he's apparently not your stereotypical Texan Republican!

Here's my biggest gripe with this whole thing: it might not be so bad to screen all the kids, except that the mainstream mental health community hasn't got a clue about how to actually fix any problems they might find. Therefore it's intrusive AND pointless. (Pointless unless you own stock in a major drug company, anyway...)

From HR 181:

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, 2000).

(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)

There are illegal drugs and legal drugs.

There is a fine line between the legal definitions of sanity and insanity.

Throw an active program of prohibiting political dissent into the mix.

Soma, anyone?

Originally posted by Azeari of the Radiant Eye
I never even heard of Ron Paul before this...he's apparently not your stereotypical Texan Republican!

That's an understatement. He was the 1988 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate. And for the sake of this topic it should be noted he's also an MD.

Looking at those numbers it's just amazing. And we wonder why kids are indifferent towards free speech - they're so drugged up they're pretty much just------like---you know---------whatever (*looking off with glazed eyes*), towards everything.

It should also be recognised that some with mental illness have made a great contribution to society...

Take Nicolai Tesla for example, without doubt a profound scientific genius, but also sadly without doubt, barking mad...

[edit on 2-2-2005 by Flange Gasket]

IMO - It's just a program to identify the "useless eaters" - while totally abdicating any responsibility for them, and just incidentally, getting insurance companies off the hook for picking up the tab....