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

I skimmed most responses because this is hard for me...

I had post natal psychosis, baddddd. Back 'then' when this happened I was being abused by my husband (USMC) and was locked up on Walter Reed's ward 54 because of my PND/P.

2 weeks of faking my way out of there, pretending all was fine emotionally to get home to my babies. Forced medications and other horrid things that I will not mention right now because it would make me seem paranoid at this point.

I was never questioned about anything ..nor did they question his motives that I may have simply been abused and afraid to go home (after giving birth) yet, afraid to stay (I had 2 other youngins at home).

I was screwed. No way I would have passed any test at that time and no one cared about my status physically or mentally in the Army Hospital I gave birth in (FT. Belvoir).

Months later, I was at WR, being doped up, my husband visiting nightly and abusing me further quietly in the quiet hallways getting me to shuttup while no one kept tabs.

I see commercials from whats-her-name actress (the blue lagoon??) pushing research and laws for PNP or PND and it is obvious it was / is NWO bull# agenda..., they need an 'honest' looking face to push their agenda, as if she had anything to be PN anything about. I did.

reply to post by silo13


Silo You are a paranoid one indeed!! You state that the government takes children away from families just to meet quotas and to make more money.

How does a government make money in taking a child away from a family that is unfit to raise it? They have to pay the case workers to determine that the parents are unfit. Then they have to pay for the counsel to defend their findings in court that the choice is right. Not to mention pay everyone other than the spectators in the court that work for the government and that decide the outcome. Oh yea then they have to pay the foster family or in some situations the orphanage to care for the child. Tens of thousands of dollars paid out on each child taken from a family to meet a quota? To make money? Sounds pretty backwards to me. When you consider the amount of children in foster care or in the states custody VS the children who live with their families it comes out to around 1%. Not one red cent is being made in a situation like the one you described, unless you are a proponent of leaving defenseless children in situation that will lead them to their abuse, to the grave or to a life of future crime in most cases that would be the only way I could see why you make such vapid statements.



[edit on 23-4-2009 by Stumpy1]

where would there be a public debate or disclosure? The government is ramming this stuff down so fast so we don't react. The only answer is revolution and a complete cleaning of all corrupt government officials.

Originally posted by Stumpy1
reply to post by silo13

 

Silo You are a paranoid one indeed!! You state that the government takes children away from families just to meet quotas and to make more money.

How does a government make money in taking a child away from a family that is unfit to raise it? They have to pay the case workers to determine that the parents are unfit. Then they have to pay for the counsel to defend their findings in court that the choice is right. Not to mention pay everyone other than the spectators in the court that work for the government and that decide the outcome. Oh yea then they have to pay the foster family or in some situations the orphanage to care for the child. Tens of thousands of dollars paid out on each child taken from a family to meet a quota? To make money? Sounds pretty backwards to me. When you consider the amount of children in foster care or in the states custody VS the children who live with their families it comes out to around 1%. Not one red cent is being made in a situation like the one you described, unless you are a proponent of leaving defenseless children in situation that will lead them to their abuse, to the grave or to a life of future crime in most cases that would be the only way I could see why you make such vapid statements.

You literally proved his point in your attempt to argue it.

A part of the system that is fed money will grow.

reply to post by silo13


Wow, these guys just don't let up. They introduce idiotic legislation, first in the hopes that no one reads them, then they quietly pass their intended legislation, and The People get the shaft.

This has "abuse" all over it. hundreds, maybe thousands of newborns, become wards of the state because some moron didn't like the way a new mother stressed out over taking an oral psychiatric exam.

Makes sense though, they already own your grown up kids with the GIVE Act, I guess now they want to own the infants.

This can only end badly.

This is a 'bill too far' for a few simple reasons.
If doctors thought that this is such a danger, then they would be already testing each and every mother.
Fact is that ALL mothers are plunged into depression as a matter of course by day 3 after the birth.
Is the test to be taken on day 3?

Next, as with all things medical, it is up to your doctor to warn and prepare you for any possibility following the birth, which probably already happens with each and every birth. This does NOT need to be legislated.
People with a serious depression or mental problem are more than capable of answering the questions correctly and covering over their illness if they choose to.

This test will only 'catch' those who are honest or vulnerable at that particular moment and they are likely to be the least likely to harm their children anyway.

This test, having to be taken BEFORE mum is leaving the hospital is just a hurdle for a new mum that will cause stress and anxiety and it will not be long before we see the first 'removed' babies being taken into state care from totally harmless mums.

But where is the test for the father to see if he is suitable to bring up a child or has violent tendencies towards children?

If both parents were being tested then maybe it would make a little sense, BUT if the government, doctors, campaigners etc were really concerned about mother's mental health why would they be causing her extra anxiety by enforcing a 'test' on her?

Sounds like the UK where children are taken from parents in order to fill the quota that the government has for adoption there.

Babies are a valuable commodity and a lot of money can be made from them!

Originally posted by Elliot

Sounds like the UK where children are taken from parents in order to fill the quota that the government has for adoption there.

Babies are a valuable commodity and a lot of money can be made from them!

You mean that figuratively right?

reply to post by Elliot

If doctors thought that this is such a danger, then they would be already testing each and every mother.

I hate to burst your bubble but doctors are far from infallible. They do not know everything, and it's not unheard of for them to make mistakes. Here is an, I admit, rather extreme example: Doctor did not know how to inject insulin

But the point is, just because someone is a doctor, do not assume that they know everything they should.

nwosigns - No, not figuratively!
There are bonus schemes in the UK for councils and social services who have the most babies adopted out. These are financial incentive schemes brought in during the Bliar years.

Many babies have been 'snatched' from their parents on the flimsiest of evidence.
There is no open court to stop these abuses in the UK.

Pimpish - I am not naive to believe that doctors know everything.
But questionaires such as those about to be filled by US new mothers, would have been a standard assessment as any standard assessment for heart disease, diabetes etc that doctors ask patients about.

In a way this is like the torture debate.

The subject knows that their answer will free them or subject them to furthur torture so they give the answer that gets them 'free' the fastest even if it is not true, as possibly it may not be.

People are able to lie, you know or give the 'correct answer'.

Now if someone was hold a figurative gun to your head and expecting correct answers 'or else' what would you do?

This is just wrong. Flat out wrong. Yeah, what about the fathers? I know of a few cases here where the father killed or injured an infant because it was crying.

Antidepressants? Jeez, give me a break, many people take them and it in no way dictates what sort of a parent one will be.

What are they going to do with all the babies that can't go home? Raise them in a facility to become brown shirts to serve the government?

I don't know who comes up with this half baked crap, but it really just pisses me off.

reply to post by Elliot

But questionnaires such as those about to be filled by US new mothers, would have been a standard assessment as any standard assessment for heart disease, diabetes etc that doctors ask patients about.

Hmmm.... Doesn't that make any of you think?

I can’t believe people are like *Oh, it’s just another form* - and you don't even ask yourself what's the repercussions if the answers are not given correctly?

Repercussions like - a new mother will be forced to allow Social Services into their home.
A new mother will be *offered* mood altering drugs - (directly related to causing psychosis and suicide) - in order to *feel all better* and take your baby home.
A new mother will be forced into complying to a Governmental set of standards in order to take her newborn home?

If you really think the hospital is going to “provide a service” by using a questionnaire to “educate” mothers about postpartum depression, and after a mother *fails* this test she‘ll still be allowed to take their child home, you’re delusional.

Let me make it as simple as I can.

New Mother takes test - New Mother fails test.
New Mother is allowed to take newborn home - New Mother kills child. (Regardless if it’s linked to PPD)
New Mothers Lawyer FRIES the hospital for *allowing* this to take place - A test was taken proving she was unfit.
Hospital now implements MANDATORY testing of all new Mothers - Psychological testing before releasing newborns.
NO TEST - NO BABY.

You just don’t get it - You still don’t get it. - It’s not the freaking bill.

It's what will happen when the questionnaire is NOT answer in a way that satisfies the Government.
AND
The Government - doing what is *best for you and your baby* is going to mandate psychological testing before they *allow* Mothers to take their babies home... And HR20 is the first step to getting there.

YOUR child does NOT belong to the Government - your child belongs to you.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by silo13]

reply to post by Stumpy1

Silo You are a paranoid one indeed!! You state that the government takes children away from families just to meet quotas and to make more money.

- Brave senator exposes social services "kidnapping" and drugging for profit policies.

In Massachusetts, over 10% of children in the Department of Social Services are being forced to take at least three psychiatric drugs at a time. Also, 19% of DSS kids are on antidepressants, 9% on antipsychotics, 21% on ADHD drugs and 13% on mood stabilizers, Similar abuse of children as financial commodities through social services, a.k.a. child protective services, exists throughout the country. For example, Florida on damages about 10% of its children with at least three psychiatric drugs at a time. Texas sends foster kids out-of-state to be used for profit.

CHILD TRAFFICKING, Secret Courts, Judges make MILLIONS on children’s lives

In what authorities are calling the biggest legal scandal in state history, the two judges pleaded guilty to tax evasion and wire fraud in a scheme that involved sending thousands of juveniles to two private detention centers in exchange for $2.6 million in kickbacks.

I just want you all to keep in mind, this is not just an isolated case, this is happening everywhere. Judges are making a fortune off of the children in ever capacity. Children are worth everything.
This IS happening where you are, it just has to be investigated and reported, rarely is someone brave enough to do so.

These are only a couple of examples.
I’m not going to spoon feed anyone.

Guess what - just because YOU don’t see it or hear about it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

And for you to call me *paranoid* when the USA has been mapped down to *Constitutional Free Zones* and those that are not - just one huge example amoung a miriad of attrocities visited on the USA by it's own Goverment over the last 8 or so years?

LOL Go right ahead and call me paranoid, it's better than what I'd call you. Baaaa! Baaaa!

peace

reply to post by Jezus
Yeah, the gov't is paying big bucks to foster parents. My neice fosters kids all the time, and the most she gets is $500.00 a month per child. That's suppost to buy clothes, food and provide health care with. It's a good thing for these kids that my neice loves children, cause the gov't sure ain't doing a lot to help any of them.

reply to post by silo13
Silo, I don't think some of these people know that the UN got caught trafficing children a while back for prostitution and God knows what else. So, you don't think for a second that our gov't didn't have a finger in that also? Naaaaaaaaa, not our gov't! They're pure as the driven snow!

reply to post by Dr Love


Funny you say that Mr. Love. I was thinking the same thing.

OrThat if this by chance is from Scientology, it may have been a hidden public apology for the tom cruise attack on brook shields. Either way, if it is her doing, good for her.

Obviously you guys haven't heard of postpartum depression. I'm sure this would stop some mothers from killing themselves or drowning their kids.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
There should be a mandated mental health test for marriage, but not for giving birth. That violates the right to life guaranteed by almost every significant system of law. In addition, it's a sort of censorship: people can be branded as mentally unfit simply by disagreeing with the government. I read in an article that like 50% of all people have some sort of mental health issue, so where would the line be drawn?

Legally, most children are wards of the state anyway. This measure would simply be making that fact more obvious. Legal eagles probably wouldn't have as much of a problem with it, due to a certain type of learned helplessness.

Why would it be ok for a test before marriage between two adults who (presumably) have spent enough time together to know of craziness tendencies but not ok for baby mamas? No sense to that.

reply to post by mhinsey


Not all people who get married know what they're doing. Not all people who get pregnant either, but new mothers can get lots of assistance in raising a kid. If you need help that much help for your marriage, then it's already doomed.

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.