While watching the goings on in the federal and state legislative world, the words from Jack Nicholson’s character in A Few Good Men of, You can’t handle the truth, bob around in my head sometimes. But I like to think that whatever gets out of control can be returned to reasonableness and rationality when the facts (or the truth) are laid out.

If the truth is that universal mental health screening is not the goal, then let’s have our leaders in our states and our nation state that they oppose specific bills that call for universal mental health screening.

And why should we homeschoolers care? My theory, along with many other watchdog homeschoolers is that as a tiny minority, we need to be in prevention mode. And maybe there are homeschoolers who haven’t heard the “what about socialization” question as if we’re a bunch of backwoods, gun totin’, barricaded kooks, but I haven’t met them yet. That question is asked without much thought, so there should be some trepidation to homeschoolers being screened for mental health in their health care providers’ office. A look at Larry and Susan Kaseman’s information in HEM’s article: Increased Mental Health Screening? Are You Crazy!?! makes thoughtful and well researched points about homeschooling concerns.

People who are considered to be marginal or “different” are particularly vulnerable in a program such as mental health screening. Professionals are eager to force them into conventional institutions such as public schools.

Standardization is the norm, after all.

In New Jersey, there were no bones made from the current and former governors about their agenda. They wanted a law and they got one last year. The New Jersey lawmakers voted for this:

Physicians, nurse midwives and other licensed health care professionals providing postnatal care to women shall screen new mothers for postpartum depression symptoms prior to discharge from the birthing facility and at the first few postnatal check-up visits;

On June 24, 2005, there was a debate about an Amendment 366 proposed to the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 in our nation’s House of Representatives. The amendment was presented by TX Representative Ron Paul and there were no cosponsors.

The amendment was very succinct. The H.AMDT.366 was “to prohibit use of funds in the bill to create or implement any universal mental health screening program“. It failed by recorded vote: 97 – 304 (Roll no. 317).

And documented from the debate are some of our Representatives’ goals and concerns. Did any of the opponents say, “we don’t want mandatory (universal) mental health screening during this discussion”? I don’t think so as I scanned comments:

Wisconsin Representative Obey: “Having said that, ["there are no plans for anyone in the Federal Government to conduct universal screening"] let me simply say I do not think our problem in this country is that we do too much screening for mental health problems with young people.”

Rhode Island Representative Kennedy: “The problem here is not overtreatment, it is undertreatment. That is why I think the Paul amendment, unfortunately, continues to ascribe to the stereotypes of the past that mental illnesses are not real illnesses and therefore they should not be treated and taken care of. That is why I would ask my colleagues to please vote against the discrimination, the intolerance, the stigma of the Paul amendment. ”

That charge was disputed with these comments from Representative Paul: “Once again, I want to make the point that this does not deny funding for individual children who show signs that they may need or they have a problem and need to be tested. It is just to make sure that this is not universal and not be mandatory and that parental rights are guarded against and that the parent is very much involved.”

And current chair of the National Governors Association, Arizona Governor, and at that time Arizona Representative Napolitano’s opposition to the amendment was this: It would affect current funds used by States for mental health services and future planning to address this issue. It is a major medical concern, and this amendment does not provide for a solution.

Even as Ohio Representative Regula stated: “Let me point out, there is no universal mental health screening funded in the underlying bill. This is an inflammatory amendment. It is not necessary.”

What is the truth?

Representative Regula also said: “They made it very clear that in all programming involving kids there is a requirement that parents participate and give their informed consent”. If he believes that of importance, then he would surely and emphatically oppose mandated mental health screenings for any specified group in his constituency, wouldn’t he?

Leaders like Michael Hogan, chair of the New Freedom Commission and Ohio Department of Mental Health Director, states this in an October 21, 2004 Washington Times letter to the editor :

The commission did not call for mandatory universal mental-health screening for all children. I am at a loss to explain why this misrepresentation persists, since it is at odds with the plain language of our report to the president.

But the plain language of his New Freedom Commission Final Report states this as one of its goals; just as one example:

4.4 Screen for mental disorders in primary health care, across the life span, and connect to treatment and supports.

And further, in reference to the New Freedom Commission’s Goal 4 of making sure that “early mental health screening, assessment, and referral to services are common practice“, the appointed chair went on to elaborate in Psychiatry Online that the “Executive Order that created the Commission emphasized that its focus should be on “children with serious emotional disturbance and adults with serious mental disabilities,” which may seem to imply a concern only for those most in need.

But yet, in their solution to “identify unmet needs and barriers to service”, “the Commission concluded that early screening, assessment, and treatment must become a national goal.”

Early screening and assessment as a national goal sounds like universal mental health screening. But we can and should ask directly and sometimes more than once: What is the truth?

In my state of Illinois, there are now 2 bills in the Senate Public Health Committee. SB-15 and SB-39 were both introduced to create the Postpartum Mood Disorders Prevention Act. (I was just told today by my Senator’s aide that SB-39 would likely be dropped.) They were introduced to mandate, among other things that:

Physicians and other licensed health care workers providing prenatal and postnatal care to women shall assess new mothers for postpartum mood disorder symptoms at a prenatal check-up visit in the third trimester of pregnancy, prior to discharge from the hospital or other healthcare facility, and at the initial postnatal check-up visit and at each postnatal check-up visit thereafter until the infant’s first birthday. Physicians and other licensed health care workers providing pediatric care to an infant shall assess the infant’s mother for postpartum mood disorder symptoms at any well-baby check-up.

One of Illinois’ leaders, Barbara Shaw, helped pass the IL Children’s Mental Health Act and is the Illinois Children’s Mental Health Partnership (ICMHP) Chair. With that role, she has been asked a few questions and in one interview for the Heartland Institute, she said this:

“Our biggest concern is that all children and expectant mothers have access to good mental health care,” ICMHP Director Barbara Shaw said. “We have no intention of setting up a mandatory system of screening. We just want the 20 percent of children who need mental health care to get what they need.”

Which inspired this question below that I sent along to her:

To: ‘Barbara.shaw@illinois.gov’
Subject: SB 15 and SB 39

Dear Ms. Shaw,

I read one of your interviews where you stated this in an interview with Fran Eaton: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17121

“Our biggest concern is that all children and expectant mothers have access to good mental health care,” ICMHP Director Barbara Shaw said. “We have no intention of setting up a mandatory system of screening. We just want the 20 percent of children who need mental health care to get what they need.”

With that said in 2005, can we now count on your opposition to SB 15 and SB 39 which proposes a “mandatory system of screening” pregnant and new moms?

I’m looking forward to your response. As I see that you have a tax funded position, I am counting on a timely response, as well. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Susan Ryan

I haven’t heard back from her office yet. She’s taken some hard hits about what many see as her universal mental health screening goal. And as the ICMHP Chair, she would satisfy much criticism and concern with her public opposition to these 2 bills to create an intentional system for mental health screening. I plan on also giving her office a call so I can ask directly; as a taxpayer, parent and concerned citizen: What is the truth?

Feb 27 2007 in Federal News, News-Commentary, State News HelenTags: home education, homeschool, Illinois Children's Mental Health Act, Michael Hogan, New Freedom Commission, postpartum depression, postpartum mental health screen, Postpartum Mood Disorders Prevention, prenatal mental health screen, universal mental health screen
6 Comments »