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.


Introducing the Parental Consent Act

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 4 2009 @ 07:44 AM

Introducing the Parental Consent Act

(NaturalNews) Rep. Ron Paul has introduced the Parental Consent Act to protect families from mandatory "mental health screening" -- a thinly-veiled attempt by Big Pharma to drug expectant mothers and new moms with dangerous psychiatric drugs.

This bill protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children.

The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the federal and state governments work toward the implementatio
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 07:44 AM
What's this all about?

The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public

When did this happen???
Are they trying to drug everyone directly like this now?

Already, too many children are suffering from being prescribed psychotropic drugs for nothing more than children's typical rambunctious behavior. According to Medco Health Solutions, more than 2.2 million children are receiving more than one psychotropic drug at one time. In fact, according to Medico Trends, in 2003, total spending on psychiatric drugs for children exceeded spending on antibiotics or asthma medication.

Unbelievable, I had no idea of this, in fact it goes all the way to 2003. I mean I always knew about Ritalin, and it was being heavily perscribed but I didn't know that parents had no control over this in this manner.

Can someone expand on this topic please?

What's going onnnn??????
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 08:07 AM
TPTB know that they may not be able to influence the older generations, but they can gain control of the younger ones. This is another step in separating the children from the parents and giving complete control over tho the states. It is a deplorable attempt to do this, but it will give them the ability to completely brainwash our youth. Check out the Communist Manifesto to learn more. OH CRAP! Now I will be labeled a right wing zealot and put on another watch list.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 08:55 AM
don't people learn from history? dissidents in oth Nazi and Commie regimes were routinely branded insane.

who determines what sane means? let's not forget that an addicted citizen is an obedient one. carrot and stick in the same syringe or pill.

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 09:03 AM
ok here is the final bush...hasn't been taken up yet...

is this a problem now??

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 09:59 AM
Heres a thread from a few weeks ago regarding HR20:'

Here is the actual text of the bill:

Heres the advocacy group for the Melanie Stokes MOTHERS ACT:

And lastly, Melanie Stokes' Mother's website (for whom the bill is named after):

Ron Paul is making me very angry with this one. This fake libertarian outrage is uncalled for in this regard. There is no link to Big Pharma. Unless you try to harm yourself or your child(ren) informed consent still applies and midwives and doctors are very cautious of SSRIs and open to non-medicinal methods of treatment because of breastfeeding.

This bill is advocated and championed by mothers. They started it! Mothers of women who have killed themselves and mothers who have experienced postpartum depression firsthand. Not to mention mothers (like myself) in general who have no problem with screening and education.

In fact, one of the biggest adversaries of the bill guessed it! CCHR....the Church of Scientology. So they got started on these "rumors" that everyone will be made to take SSRIs...blah blah...No. In fact, most Scientologists don't even believe PPD exists.....

Basically, it just opens up funding/grants for the Department of Health and Human Services for research into PPD as well as a national public awareness campaign.

Oh, not to mention the screening is voluntary; as per the bill itself.

There is some rumor saying "they might not let you take your children home fromt he hospital" etc. but PPD does not start until at least 2 weeks postpartum (anything before that is just the "baby blues" which almost everyone experiences). So no one is screening you there, voluntarily or not. It has more to do with a 6 week postpartum checkup and then a yearly annual visit......many women don't want to speak up about how they feel until they are asked you see.

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 10:10 AM
reply to post by awake_awoke

Excuse me but what exactly makes you think that the women who started that which you are speaking of have the right to speak for so many other soon to be mothers?

Please explain why you believe this Melanie Stockes is the woman's delegate? Who is she and you to believe that you speak for every mother?

Mothers have been raising children for hundreds of centuries fine.

What you are supporting is the "dumbing down" of mothers.... in a way

here's an post from the link you provided

Originally posted by No Mas No Mas
These so called mothers who suffered from post partum should have lobbied congress to pass a bill demanding doctors to educate new mothers on proper nutrition after having a baby. I find it baffling that women in 3rd world countries now how to replenish the body with the proper foods and vitamins but in the western world we just give them an anti depressant.

awoke, you are making a huge deal out of nothing, just like the govt. likes to do.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by ModernAcademia]

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 10:37 AM
reply to post by awake_awoke

As usual, it will first be voluntary then will become mandatory. They will have findings that such a high percentage is found that "Mother Washington" will deem it mandatory to " Protect the Children " and that will be that. If you believe for one minute that 'Big Pharma' isn't behind this you are sadly mistaken. Concerta, Metadate CD, Metadate ER, Methylin, Methylin ER, Ritalin, Ritalin LA, Ritalin-SR make 'Big Pharma' billions every year. Drugs for post partum, like Antidepressants Celexa Cymbalta Effexor Lexapro Paxil are being prescribed at much higher rates for any minor problem that a DR. can find. Its wrong and has no business be used in a mandatory fashion. This bill would give parents andindividuals the 'RIGHT" to refuse!

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 10:40 AM
In a world of the Insane.....The Sane man is KING.


In a world of the Insane, the Sane man is SCREWED.

I havn't figured out which yet.

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 10:43 AM
Indeed they have!

Well I really wouldn't say its just supported by a bunch of women who run a postpartum advocacy group. It is also supported by such organizations as the March of Dimes, the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, the Children's Defense Fund, the National Association of Social Workers, the Association of Maternal & Child Health Programs, American Psychiatric Association and the Suicide Prevention Action Network, among others.

I'm really not sure why there is some disinformation out there implying there is some sort of MANDATORY screening, because that is certainly not the case.

The interesting thing after discussing this will my colleagues is that we believe the funding that will be made available for education of Pre and Post-Natal DD will in fact REDUCE possible dependency on SSRIs for treatment.

Every midwife or OB should be screening for prenatal depression and postpartum during the course of their care anyway. It affects over 20% of the childbearing population yet still remains under-researched.

So the good news is if you don't want to be "screened" (though you are always being screened for signs of depression though you don't know it) you don't have to officially be. No one is going to steal your baby. The other good news is that more funding will be made available for research.

This bill really does not change much (if caregivers are doing their job correctly) except awareness or funding.

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 10:45 AM
I was pretty sure that when that mental health bill was brought up in a thread awhile back, that we came to the conclusion that it was to prevent women from leaving the hospital without some sort of support (be it a counselor or medication) if and only if they are suffering from postpartum depression.

I'm actually pretty sure that I remember reading that bill and I remember what it said. I didn't think it was a "cover-up bill."

It could have been *shrug* but I mean, the argument is kind of weak. Most anti-depressants and stuff can't be taken by nursing mothers.

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 10:51 AM

Originally posted by awake_awoke
The interesting thing after discussing this will my colleagues is that we believe the funding that will be made available for education of Pre and Post-Natal DD will in fact REDUCE possible dependency on SSRIs for treatment.

Maybe you and your colleagues should disccuss what exactly has the extremely well funded Dept. of Education done for you lately?

What has the dept. of health done for you lately?

What has any govt. dept. done for you lately.

Maybe you and your colleagues should discuss the amount of money pouring into these departments but no result ever coming out of it.

Even Reagan said that no govt. dept. will ever help you and a govt. dept. is the closest thing to eternal life, because even though after years of that dept. not working, they will still nonetheless get used to that funding given to them, so they'll never close down.

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 10:56 AM
As I pointed out on the previous thread on the subject, your child can already be "stolen" (though it does not particularly happen in that regard) from you in the hospital itself (depending on your states' regulations and hospital policy). For example, if a crack-addict who has received no pre-natal care comes to the ER to deliver her baby, and this information is divulged, social services will most likely be paying a visit to ask about family, living accomadations, etc. Then, depending on the state, appropriate action can be taken. However, if you choose to birth in a hospital, this is the case. It cannot be helped.

More interesting than the Melanie Stokes Act is actually the new legislation passed through in Idaho regulating midwifery and a women's right to choose her own method of care-as this does affect one's judgement and liberty as a woman preparing for childbirth. Though it does not really affect CNMs, lay midwifery and community midwivery, as well as freebirthing, is highly affected. As someone who advocates a woman's right to be a mother in the best way she sees fit, I would be interested to see what Dr. Paul has to say on this subject.

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 11:06 AM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

Well I certainly can't pick a fight there in that regard. It has its successes and losses and I have my issues with most regulatory departments, whether they are governmental or privately funded.

However, my point was that I am still flabbergasted and the amount of disinfo (I seriously do expect to be coming from the Scientologists) about this bill.

I would say the reduced dependency on SSRIs would come from the educational aspect. If you are breastfeeding and you take an antidepressant it WILL get into your breastmilk, in very small amounts. Most caregivers, except in extreme or serious cases, will offer them (they do work) but discuss the risks and advocate alternatives in full. I couldn't imagine a nationally funded campaign ignoring this information and most women decide to try the "natural" route first when it comes to treatment.

Without the appropriate information being given to them (say they have a poor caregiver) women are far too easily led to taking whatever pills are handed to them. It seems the advocacy groups themselves appear to have more of a "natural is best" tinge to them...however, every woman is completely different as to what works.

What I really don't understand is how Dr. Paul's Parental Consent Act links to the Melanie Stokes Act. The Natural News article begins by doing so, but it seems to me the Parental Consent Act has more to do with screening school-age children for ADD, depression, etc. with no mention of anything else.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by awake_awoke]

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 11:22 AM
reply to post by awake_awoke

I think the bill you are advocating should stop at awareness.
If it's just more awareness then i'm all for it

But this has big pharma written all over it
Even your miss. Stockes herself was on every anti depressant pill in the book, and then the link to the bill you gave speaks of substance abuse if someone is under this after-birth depression.

Anti-depressants are extremely addictive.

You have to remember, North America is addicted to medicine and "shortcut" pills. This is the wrong nation to introduce this bill to.

Again, it should simply stop at awareness.

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 11:32 AM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

And I agree completely. But as I said above, if seems like Dr. Paul's Act and the Melanie Stokes act do not have anything in common and Natural News (though I do enjoy reading it every now and again) is making a link that does not exist.

I would completely agree that every child should not be screened for ADD etc. without parental consent. That seemes competely reasonable and I would like to see someone challenge it.

ADD and its over-medication in this country is a laughingstock.

However, unlike childhood ADHD/ADD/whatever, PPD is a serious problem with serious consequences and the worst you're going to get with an "un-medicated" child might be a little boy running up and down the walls all day

Let it be your choice and not that of the govt.

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 06:00 AM
Yes, professionals in their field. Right. I just so happen to live in a college town. Oxford, Ohio. Home of Miami University. These experts that will be screening your child in the future currently do not look both way before crossing the street today, which is a long standing tradition here at Mother Miami. That is when they are sober. The drunken revelries are far worse examples of professionalism including but not limited to the following: public urination (males and females), public acts of sex, and public partial/full addition to more common acts of drunkenness due to binge drinking and drug use.

But to relate a personal story, I was given an IQ test in elementary in the late 1970's. The initial result was mild retardation because I did not know multiplication and division and acted as though I had never heard of the concept despite that it should have been taught at the time per standard curriculum. After the administrator investigated that I had not been introduced, he said that " is impossible to determine an actual could be in the 180's or as high as 220's. I can not administer a future test due to bias. It is my recommendation that the results are never discussed until after graduation from high school for fear that this knowledge could used to manipulate other students and teachers...Final score: Indeterminable."

I was placed with the slower kids for the rest of elementary and junior high in order to keep me dumbed down and was no longer encouraged to perform extra academic activities. My sixth grade teacher was the same as my first grade teacher (she was promoted) and lamented how the years had changed me from when she had me before. Of course, her idea to educate me in the first grade was for me to spend all day in the library reading any book I wished. The elementary librarian took me to the high school library when I had exhausted the books in her library and then had me write my own children's book when I became bored with the trips to the high school library.

I have dropped out of college three times. An old psychiatrist friend of mine, still derides me for never completing a degree. We recently started emailing each other after a mutual friend of ours had died last January...which reminds me, that I owe him a letter.

new topics

top topics


log in