"No child left undrugged"

"This week, the House is to vote on [a] bill which provides for mandatory mental health screening of kids in public schools," writes a properly enraged Bunker Mulligan re the latest travesty of Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, "the same lady who wanted to name hurricanes in a more politically-correct way":

The first line of the bill says "At least one in five children and adolescents has a diagnosable mental, emotional or behavioral problem that can lead to school failure, alcohol or other drug use, violence or suicide." How did I manage to rear four children with no mental health problems?

Are you concerned about total government control of your child's life? This is not just a step in that direction -- it is a huge leap.  The evaluation will determine a mental rating for your child that will follow him/her for many years.  It may require medication under threat to you of child abuse or neglect prosecution.

"It seems that the only winners if this proposal is put through will be the drug companies and parents who'd rather have their children drugged up and submissive than actively parent them," writes Sherry of Bittersweet, where we first learned of the imminent bill.

Kent Snyder of something called The Liberty Committee -- which, unbeknownst to us (MSM asleep at the switch again), mobilized a letter-writing campaign that resulted in language that would prohibit funding the House proposal without written parental permission -- is now asking interested citizens to let their Senators know where they stand on the issue. In a post titled "No child left undrugged," Mind of Mog provides phone numbers and e-mail addresses and a disheartening revelation re the source of the idea:

This idea for forced mental screening of children is the brainchild of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, which commission President Bush established in 2002. First the children, then everyone will be forced to undergo screening if they have their way. I have no idea why Bush established this, but it smacks of control of Orwellian proportions all to benefit the drug companies and, naturally, the government.

Being of a libertarian bent, we've not cared too much for a number of GW's domestic initiatives through the years, but this one flies in the face of family values, not to mention common sense. For Andrew Sullivan, GW's stance on gay marriage was the first chink in the armor.  For us it may be this.  But it's no problem a democracy re-energized by the power of the blogosphere can't handle. Excuse us now while we go put in calls to Senators Ted Kennedy's and John Kerry's offices to register our opinion.

Comments

[acjgoomp]

Maybe it is W's scheme to put the liberals in the asylum where of course they belong, but I must say it is not the way of democracy.

[Sissy Willis]

I don't know. But together with other bloggers, I'm planning to hold his feet to the fire.

[acjgoomp]

Good Show!

[Sherry]

Agreed Sissy - I just can't support Bush on this and he has got to change his stance. This is insane.