It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


HR20-New Mother's Mandated Mental Health Test-JUST PASSED HOUSE!

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:17 PM
reply to post by nixie_nox
No, this is not drama at all. Apparently you did not read the "entire" bill! For if you did, you'd have noticed the gov't code "42 U.S.C. 254b"! That code means that in order for facillities to receive the grants necessary for these case studies, the applicants, which in this case means the mothers of the unborn children, are mandated by this HR20 bill to undergo all tests for any kind of psychiatric evaluations. This info can be found
You'll see that link "42 U.S.C. 254b" under section 201 about 1/4 of the way down the page. Click on it and you'll find the terminology for the ammending the Public Health Service Act. So, yes, this legislation makes it "mandatory" for new mothers to undergo mental health testing. Now, go and unbind your panties now!

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:18 PM
reply to post by Tentickles

Thanks Tentickles for posting just another side of this issue I was reluctant to get in to (only because I lost all my info).

With all the hormonal balances askew after birth, how is any mother going to be able to answer any questions clearly.

It would belike taking a test for being drunk while under the influence.

Thanks for your post...

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:33 PM
reply to post by silo13
ROCK ON SILO!!!!!! These idiots can't see the forest for the trees. The bill plainly states that the dept of health and human services is involved, and that when a new mother leaves the mental helath facility, she is to continue carrying on with her treatments. The catch phrase here was when the "mother" left the mental health facility! It never said a word about the "mother and child"! Silo, me and you and few others know what's happening, and that's okay. Let the others find out the hard way if they have a problem child who's on drugs or something, and has been on any kind of psychiatric drugs before like paxil or zoloft and become pregnant. Right now, my neice is foster caring for a little boy whose mother is a manic depressant and a druggie, and this is one reason this bill was written. But it's gonna be all new mothers who'll pay the price for a select few!

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:47 PM
reply to post by thewind

Click on it and you'll find the terminology for the ammending the Public Health Service Act. So, yes, this legislation makes it "mandatory" for new mothers to undergo mental health testing.

Thank you - it's much better coming from you.

And the below.

Let's listen to her...

Now granted, she's going at this from the drug side of the issue - just another strike against the HR20 - and though I agree with her wholeheartedly, my focus is what will happen to the children who will not be allowed to go home with their parents.


[edit on 22-4-2009 by silo13]

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 04:10 PM
reply to post by awake_awoke

The Act you cite to that includes screening died in the Senate in 2007, and the screening requirement of that Act never made its way into the current bill that just passed the House on March 30, 2009.

Link to current HR 20

I read the entire bill, and it is harmless. There is no requirement for screening. This is a bill to pay for research. In fact, it is a good thing. Post-Pardon Depression is a major B!tch.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 04:22 PM
reply to post by silo13

The vid you posted is such a piece of bovine fecal material that it is not even funny. PPD is real, trust me, my wife had it and it was horrible. Anti-depressants are not for everyone, but if you need them, you should use them.

Sounds like Tom Cruise telling us that anti-depressants are the enemy. Ideally, no one should need medicine, but sometimes people get sick. Depression is a sickness just like the Flu or TB. If you are sick, you should seek medical help.

This act is trying to make it easier for women who seek help to get it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not everthing the Government does is bad for us, Just most of the things it it does.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 04:22 PM
reply to post by finemanm


One more person who can't see the elephant in the livingroom.

Do you really not *get* what this is all about???


posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 04:26 PM
reply to post by silo13

If the speaker on that YouTube Vid actually read the act, he would know that there isn't anything about mandatory screening.

There was in an older version of the Bill that died in the senate in 2007, but not in the current bill.

I know, the government is the Boggy Monster. SUBMIT MAGGOT
Reistance is FUTILE and the such.

Take a deep breath, there is nothing mandatory in that bill as it pertains to new mothers. The Forced Volunteer Law is another story. That one you should be concerned over.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 04:31 PM
This is the video that got me started on all this months ago.
I had a huge post ready on my other computer, and just didn’t post it.
It was all *old* news and I’m ashamed to admit I didn’t post it then.

Full report here and full length video.

Full Length Video and Report - REscue My Kids

And this is only the tip of the iceberg - And this video is ages old.

People who think Social Services does not kidnap children?

You’re wrong.


[edit on 22-4-2009 by silo13]

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 04:33 PM
This is already in place where I live.
It is a two interview process for mom's with more than one child, three, for first time parents,an interview before the birth, at the hospital where you go and arrange all the details for the birth of your baby.....
The second is a social worker that comes to interview you after the fact, and this was even in place when my daughter was born 6 years ago...
They ask simple questions like if you have stress and how do you deal with it.
Do you have a good support network?
Do you have hobbies?
What do you do for fun?
Some of the questions were a bit intrusive but then again Iam very guarded.
After coming home the mother has the option of a public health nurse visit.
It is not mandatory, only recommended, unless you are a first time parent.
You can view it how you like but I doubt any public outcry will change anything.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 04:34 PM
While I completely sympathize with the video you posted above, and I find it absolutley heartbreaking a new mother had to go through such an ordeal bringing life into this world, I must say the following:

The Melanie Blocker-Stokes Bill (named after her in memorial) was brought into legislation by her mother, Carol. I suggest you read her story-it is not unlike the one posted above, but with a much more sinister ending. Melanie was given every SSRI and ghastly enough, electrotherapy...and she killed herself. Her mother is a crusader for women suffering from postpartum depression-there is nothing sinister in her actions.

No obstetrician forces anyone, during pregnancy or postpartum, to take SSRIs. Reactions to Zoloft, in particular, regardless of postpartum depression, can be nasty. Zoloft however, due to SSRI interaction with breastfeeding, is considered the "safest" SSRI for breastfeeding mothers.

I clearly posted a link earlier, from the mothers who started the bill, regarding their opinions on what those who oppose the bill, and how a large amount of those who "dissent" are affiliated with Scientology. In fact, a large amount of them do not, plain and simple, belive PPD exists.

It is clearly a woman's decision whether or not when suffering from postpartum depression if they take medication, brestfeeding or not.

When you harm your child due to PPD, and you are admitted, then the decision may not be up to you.

And question about HR20 not containing language for a non-drug violation of informed consent...well, I can assure you this will not happen in the obstetrical community. You have my word. This has nothing to do with the intention of this bill. Its not feasible and no ob or midwife I personally know would get rid of informed consent in regards to SSRIs and pregnancy/postpartum.

The reason for screening during pregnancy is the following-and it is very personal to myself. A couple I had worked with once-the mother started suffering from prenatal depression around 29 weeks. Prenatal depression is not "widely" known however the number of women it affects are staggering in comparison to what popular opinion may be about a glowing, pregnant woman. My first pregnancy, around, say 20 weeks, I began to feel I had prenatal depression. And I did. And I couldn't believe I, the doula, was suffering from this. Of course I knew to speak to my midwife and I made the decision (as is my right) to not take a SSRI and though prenatal depression puts you at high risk for postnatal depression, and never had it, and I never even felt the "baby blues".

Postnatal depression has been widely popularized and there are numerous support systems out there. However, prenatal depression is something that has recently come into the limelight. It is under-screened.

The most important thing here on ATS is CONTEXT. Who wrote this bill? Why are they writing it? What will it do?
Obviously their intentions, due to what most of them have experienced in their lives, especially Melanies mother, are not sinister.

You have called me a sheep and said my "sort of thinking" makes it a wonder that the human race survies?

I have repeatedly provided links and information regarding who wrote this bill, their intentions, the bills ACTUAL context, and who is opposing it.

Out of anything I know here on ATS it would be childbirth and lactation. I have worked with these women and experienced it myself.

This bill is wrong on no levels whatsoever.

It simply means that instead of just handing a woman a pill, without any information(as shown in your YouTube video) will no longer be tolerated. It ensures obstetricians are doing their job in educating women about their bodies, as they should be doing. It was created for a very powerful reason.

If you want to speculate on what this bill could possibly be used for in the future, without any regard to its intent and wording.....Fine. Just know its an insult to the women who worked so hard to have it passed.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 04:39 PM
I want to begin by saying this is a healthy conversation.

It takes discussions like this for both parties of/or opinion to create some idealism about what's really goin on. Dig it.

Here's my 2 cents.

In theory, it's a good idea. HOWEVER it's subjective" so that causes major concern for me. If ANYTHING, it should be mandatory to take parenting classes, before anyone can bring a baby home. But that's aside from
post pardum depression. I know....


How are you going to tell me this will "help screening" post partum depression only a couple of days after giving birth???

POST partum depression will usually take affect weeks after!!
Doesn't add up.

YES. It will be mandatory for mother's to go thru a screening.
IMO, it's manipulative in nature.

What kind of questions will it include? What are the appropriate answers?
And do you sincerely TRUST those who determine the questions/answers to make a decision on whether you can take your baby home or not???
Not me bucko!

Silo made a good point.......
What are the plans for babies who are "not leaving with their mothers.?"
The bill mentions the mothers leaving, well, what about the babies??

IMO it's a catch 22. Sure, it will serve justice for (ex.) neglecting mothers who choose to smoke crack during pregnancy and homeless, etc. I'm all for it. Chances are the child will have a better life, even in a foster home.
No doubt.
My worries tho are the fact that this will be MANDATORY for ALL mothers, and that some questionniere in a "pilot" program, passed by law, could decide whether she takes her baby home or not is ABSURD!
Wake up!

This is just another way of the Federal Government stretching their tentacles even into the hospital room where your wife is giving birth.

Don't trust anyone with (decisions on) your child's life. ANYONE..... especially the government.

Who's hungry? How bout a sanguich.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 04:48 PM
reply to post by silo13

When a mother is labled *at risk* due to these *tests* what will happen to the child?

Well, to be honest I'm not entirely sure because for one I can't find anywhere in the bill where there is any mandatory testing. I'm definitely not a lawyer, so I can admit that maybe I'm missing it in the wording somewhere.

This bill is to provide funding for research and services for post partum depression. It doesn't mention tests anywhere in the bill, so I can't really answer that.

However, there is this:

(7) Postpartum depression is a treatable disorder if promptly diagnosed by a trained provider and attended to with a personalized regimen of care including social support, therapy, medication, and when necessary hospitalization.

So, the mother will obviously get necessary services for treating the disorder, though I am not sure what they would do with the child while that was going on - my guess would be that the mother keeps her child. It could be something where they have 24 hour supervision for a time, just keep the child as normal, or something else entirely. I have no idea since that is not in this bill anywhere.

All this bill boils down to, as far as I can tell, is funding for studies on post partum depression, and funding for services for women who are suffering from post partum depression in any of it's forms, including "baby blues" which someone mentioned earlier. The bill does not mention testing anywhere, nor anything mandatory anywhere other than the requirements for receiving a grant. It also does not mention anywhere in the bill pschological testing to get out of the hospital with your child.

To be honest, I only see good things with this bill. If women are suffering from PPD, then they need to be diagnosed, and they need help. If the government wanted to take their child away, they certainly do not need this bill to do it - they can, and have, been taking children away from unfit parents for quite a long time. If anything, I think this will help more mother's keep their children, as some of the symptoms of PPD can be seen (rightly so) as abuse to a child and they can have their child taken away. Whereas with this bill, perhaps they can properly be diagnosed, and treated, for PPD and therefore be able to keep a child that they might otherwise have lost.

This is also from the bill:

(5) The symptoms of postpartum psychosis include losing touch with reality, distorted thinking, delusions, auditory hallucinations, paranoia, hyperactivity, and rapid speech or mania.

These are definitely things that can make one seem an unfit parent. I would much rather have a parent suffering from PPD with any of these symptoms get treated and keep their child, instead of the way it might otherwise have been and just have their child taken away because the right people didn't understand that the mother had PPD.

The government has done and I'm sure, is doing, many nefarious things, I just don't see this as being one of them.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 04:58 PM
reply to post by awake_awoke

If you want to speculate on what this bill could possibly be used for in the future, without any regard to its intent and wording.....Fine. Just know its an insult to the women who worked so hard to have it passed.

I’m not the one insulting her.
The Government will be insulting her when they use this bill against mothers and children.
I do regret the her pain and loss, of course I do. And I’ll stop here before I ad a *but* to that sentence.
And again, I regret if you or anyone felt I was attacking you.
Not my intention at all.

I appreciate your post - very much and I’m not trying to slander you, your work, what you’ve done and what you’ve researched.

But my question - one that has not been answered yet is:

- When a woman takes this *test* and fails it - what will happen?

- Will the mother be offered anti depressants in order to be *allowed* to take her child home?
And if you wanted your child and wanted to go home and were offered pills - wouldn't you take them?
Most would.
So this will defeat exactly what this woman is trying to do with this bill.
And you can’t tell me it isn’t going to happen because it already does.

- Now, if the mother does not take the medication, will the child be allowed to go home with the mother?

- If not where is the child going to go?

- What will the mother have to do to get her child back?

- What if the mother refuses the test? Will she be allowed to take the child home anyway?


posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 05:11 PM
reply to post by silo13

Though I sympathize to some extent with the gentleman speaking in the youtube video, there is nothing to verify his story unfortunately. He talks much more about other cases than his own case. All he says about his own case is that they falsified documents, they don't smoke, drink, or do drugs, and they live in a 4 bedroom 2 bathroom house. There are plenty of reasons to take a child(ren) from a family just such as that aside from drugs, homelessness, etc...obviously.

I don't know that case so I can't speak on it. What I can say is that I'm quite sure that in the 2 years their child had been gone, they would have most likely been subjected to at least one psychological evaluation each, mother and father. They would have also likely been offered/provided services that they were expected to comply with for the case plan. I have no idea what was in their psychological reports, but it could very well be that the psychologist recomended that CPS, or CPI I guess as it's called in Florida, pursue permanancy plans for placing the children somewhere other than with their biological parents. Also, if they did not comply with the recommended services, which can include family counseling, individual counseling, group therapy, doing UA's on a regular basis, psychotherapy, anger management, parenting classes, working with a parent aide, and the list goes on, then their chances to get their child(ren) back get much worse.

The goal of any case plan is reunification with the parents. That is obviously not always possible, but they set out with that as their goal every time. That is why they offer the classes and services that they do, because ultimately they know it would be better for the child to be back with his biological parents and to have those parents to be able to properly parent their child(ren).

I'm kind of curious what money that guy thinks that they get from taking children. I'm pretty sure they would have to spend a considerable amount of money in taking a child, for many reasons. They have to feed them, house them, clothe them. They have many services that they provide to the parents and to the children, which are also not free. I doubt they are making money from taking children away.

If they really did catch that person falsifying reports, that is bad and that person belongs in prison, which is where it sounds like she went. Had it been the department that put her up to that, I'm sure she would have been dropping dimes on as many people as she could to try and get herself out of hot water, sounds like one bad case manager. Unfortunately, that happens in every walk of life. There are some bad people and some good people. Luckily the good people still seem to be more prevalant than the bad.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 05:48 PM
reply to post by silo13

Alright apology accepted. Now we can play nice and deny ignorance together.

In my honest opinion, I could not begin to fathom the actual questioning in the direct 48 hour period after childbirth. During pregnancy I could see such questioning, and eventually postpartum I could see it, but I could not see an accurate mental health diagnosis being made in that immediate time period. It would be medically irresponsible.

The questioning for the 10-20%ish of women who suffer from prenatal depression follow the exact same questioning as that of regular depression; i.e not sleeping, not eating, anxiety, suicide, etc. There are "signs" to look as a care provider but information must be provided in order for the woman to "diagnose" she has an actual problem.
There are also "pre-existing conditions" which are used...such as terrible PMS, previous depression not related to pregnancy, previous PPD.

The "baby blues" (which is normal due to estrogen and testosterone levels subsiding/rising) peak around the 4th day postpartum and should end around 2 weeks afterward. These also mimick depression. Anything after two weeks is not "normal" (though it might not be PPD) and is cause of alarm. Considering most mothers have the "baby blues" questions during that first 48 hour period would be futile!
"Are your tearful?"
"Change in appetite?"
"Fatigue or loss of energy?"
"Difficulty concentrating?"

Um, YES! I just went through 40 hours of labor, haven't slept, trying to breastfeed, this hospital food is terrible, my emotions are everywhere, and this baby won't stop crying! AHHH!

Unless you say you directly feel suicidal or like harming your baby...then I would say every mother would be diagnosed with PPD (even though that usually is not done, yet again, until after 2 weeks PP). So no one would be going home with a baby!!!!!

Lets say you feel suicidal. That would be the only logical questioning with any time of resonance in the medical community. You just had a baby, you're in the hospital, and you want to kill yourself.
Being that you are still in the hospital, I would strongly presume they would try to keep you there. I would also strongly presume, being in that "controlled" environment, they would try very hard to get you to take SSDIs. Once you check in that hospital you give up alot of power. That is kind of the way it is...regardless of this bill. In fact, there is a strong possibility being that you are already in a medical environment that you could even have your consent taken away from you.

Medically, suicidal tendencies are highly, highly unlikely while still in the hospital. Though we could probably both agree....if you are going to kill yourself or others...some intervention is needed for general reasons of morality...and obviously, liability...

I think it would be up to hospital policy and/or state law at that point...not this bill.

Let's say you have had a previous case of PPD...a severe one. And in the hospital they ask you how you feel, and you pretty much exemplify the "baby blues". I do not think they would force medication on you immediately. It might depend on what worked for you in the past. For example, some women say stopping breastfeeding helps, some say keep breastfeeding helps. Some say SSRIs....some say Reiki! And it can change from pregnancy to pregnancy.....

I also think you would not be denied to leave with your child. They will ask you, in any kind of "risk" situation, if you and your partner are having "problems" or if you don't have a partner...then do you have any family? Again, these are "risk" questions and not diagnosis.
I don't doubt SSRIs might be offered by some irresponsible doctors at this point-but you can't babysit everyone. If you don't do your research, AND NO INFO IS PROVIDED TO YOU, then how you can make an informed decsion?

Also, don't forget many times thyroid problems due to hormonal fluctuations are often misdiagnosed as PPD.....

[edit on 22-4-2009 by awake_awoke]

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 06:00 PM

Originally posted by silo13

And what about what will they do with the children who's parent's are deemed unfit?
Raise them by the State?

[edit on 22-4-2009 by silo13]

Yes the state will own them. I think wards of the state are covered under disadvantaged children, for the new Obama a call to service give act.

So yes all the pieces start to fit together.

A research program, that also finds out how PPD effects people, including race based, done at a federal level. The report and recommendations will be made no later than two years after this bill is passed, and from there you will have the senarios we are talking about.

It goes in stages. If they introduced many of these options at once people would not accept, but it will all come in waves and stages.

With each wave, someone telling you that you have nothing to worry about, it's just a harmless bill, law, etc.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Harassment101]

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 06:37 PM
Good, atleast we know that no more of our elected officials will be able to make vessels

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 10:41 PM
Here's the big picture, for all those who are too blind to see it.
1:HR1188- The Give Act- Mandatory public service for ages 16-64 years old "passed"
2: HR875- USDA House Food Safety Act of 2009- won't be able to grow a backyard garden.
3: HR645- FEMA exercise for domestic terrorism and rounding up domestic disturbing protesters
4: HR20- Mandatory screening of all new mothers.

And these are but a few of the new bills on the hill right now either awaiting a vote, or has already passed and has been signed by obama. The gov't wants to control everything from the food we eat to the number of children we can have. Wake up people, the writing is all over the wall.

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:43 AM
Sounds like they are trying to get more kids "in the system" where they can be monitored and properly indoctrinated. Apparently the propaganda machine that is the public school system isn't producing brainwashed NWO zombies efficiently enough. Scary bill, contact your reps.


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in