Archive for the ‘Compulsory Drugging’ Category

Newer Entries »

CDC: Immunize Every Kid in America Against Flu – Every Year! Hey, It Worked in NJ!

Thursday, February 28th, 2008

The CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics have succeeded in New Jersey so they are now after every child in America: vaccinate every child every year with flu shots that damage the immune system, may contain mercury, surely contain aluminum, formaldehyde, foreign protein, and actually don’t work most of the time. Apparently that sounds like a winner to the Big Pharma side of the house.

There are twists of logic that boggle the mind here. For example, although the CDC admitted within the last month that this year’s seasonal flu shot is only effective 40% of the time or less since the viruses in circulation are not the ones covered by the vaccine, there is no let up in the insistence that every child get vaccinated with this flu shot.
Consider, too, the rather astonishing quote from the article below:

“No deaths have been reported in New Jersey this season, but 16 children have been hospitalized with confirmed cases of flu, state
health officials said. Flu activity is currently characterized by the CDC as “widespread” in New Jersey.”

Does that mean that 16 kids with severe immunocompromise problems (say, kids on chemotherapy for cancer) or kids with HIV/AIDS got the flu and needed to be hospitalized and so every kid in the country needs to be vaccinated with a dangerous shot? What about the lost days and hours and lives of parents who have kids who have been vaccine injured and suffered brain injury, autism, asthma, or cancer? And what about the loss of parental rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States? Is that worth protecting the employers of New Jersey and the US from lost days of work by the parents whose kids get the flu (most often a cold, by the way)?

Apparently it does.
And then there is the rather weird “logic” of vaccinating kids yearly to protect their parents from loosing time from work (last year it was “vaccinate the kids to protect the elderly with whom they might come into contact”). You will note the same arguments used in New Jersey before the Health Commissioner declared that every child in the state, starting in infancy, would have to be vaccinated annually if they wanted to attend day care or go to school.

It is rumored in New Jersey that when Governor Corzine’s Stem Cell Therapy initiative failed to give the Big Pharma companies headquartered in that State the huge give away they were anticipating, he felt compelled to do something to help these companies (like Merck) want to stay in NJ. Reasoning that annual vaccination of kids might be a good gift to his Pharma Phriends, the Governor, who has been provided with all the scientific information needed to make it clear that this is a very, very bad idea, decided to go ahead anyway. A real “Man of the People”, as long as you are talking about Pharmaceutical investors and executives.

Read today’s entry into the “Vaccinate Every Kid Every Year” Propaganda campaign.

Compulsory vaccination is just part of the plans afoot for compulsory drugging. Please take all of the following Action Steps to protect your rights to make your own health decisions, not have them forced upon you by the Pharmaceutically controlled policy makers.

1. STOP COMPULSORY DRUGGING AND VACCINATION (http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=21835)

2. SUPPORT PHILOSOPHICAL EXEMPTIONS IN NEW JERSEY AND ALL OTHER STATES (http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=23087)

3. STOP SCHOOLS FROM FORCING DRUGS ON KIDS
(http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=18970)

4. PREGNANT AND NEW MOMS DON’T NEED FORCED DRUGGING THAT COULD INJURE OR KILL THEIR BABIES
(http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=23065)

These actions steps are vitally important in the movement toward passive helplessness in the face of Big Pharma domination of public policy toward active citizen control of our own health decisions.
Please support this change by taking the steps, letting everyone in your circle of influence know about them and making a recurring donation to the Natural Solutions Foundation by clicking here (http://www.Healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189) to make your tax deductible donation.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org

CDC panel expands flu shot guidance: Children up to 18 should get vaccine
Thursday, February 28, 2008
BY ANGELA STEWART
Star-Ledger Staff
Every child up to the age of 18 should be immunized against the flu,
a federal advisory panel recommended yesterday.

The recommendation, made by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, would
increase the number of children receiving flu shots by 30 million a year. Children younger than 6 months are excluded.

It is expected to be approved by the CDC as early as this spring and
become the agency’s official policy for the 2008-2009 flu season.

“We don’t expect any issue with this recommendation,” said Curtis
Allen, a CDC spokesman.

The CDC’s previous recommendation was that children from 6 months to
5 years of age or those with chronic conditions that put them at high
risk of complications needed to be immunized.

Allen said the expanded recommendation — which would be advisory but
likely influential — is pri marily aimed at protecting healthy
children of all ages against the flu, but noted it will also offer
residual benefits to others.

“The logic is there are children in this 6-month to 18-year-old age
group who are in schools where we know a lot of influenza
circulates,” he said. “When a child becomes sick, a parent also has
to stay home and out of work, which is lost productivity. Once a
child is vacci nated, this will help protect others in their
household and the community from influenza.”

A representative of the American Academy of Pediatrics applauded the
recommendation, saying there are many children with conditions like
asthma who should be getting immunized but aren’t.

“We know that the vaccine is the best method for preventing influenza
and its potential severe complications,” said Henry Bern stein, a
member of the academy’s committee on infectious diseases and chief of
pediatrics at Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire

Children have among the highest rates of flu of any age group,
according to the CDC, with more than 20,000 kids under the age of 5
hospitalized each year nationwide. So far this flu season, 22
children across the country have died from flu-related illness, Allen
said.

No deaths have been reported in New Jersey this season, but 16
children have been hospitalized with confirmed cases of flu, state
health officials said. Flu activity is currently characterized by the
CDC as “widespread” in New Jersey.

Maria Spina of Colonia, whose 7-month-old daughter, Carlee, received
a flu shot yesterday at the office of Nutley Pediatrics, said she
thought the recommendations made sense.

“I think any mother would worry if their child got really sick with
the flu,” Spina said.

Richard Marcus, who immu nized Spina’s baby yesterday, said many
parents take vaccine preventable diseases “very, very, lightly.”

“It’s seen as something that doesn’t affect their children, that is
until they have an episode,” Mar cus said. “Then they become firm
believers.”

Alissa Kanowitz, who was a founder of a group called Families
Fighting Flu, lost her 4-year-old daughter Amanda in 2004 to the flu.
Amanda was not immunized, as the CDC at the time only recommended
shots for children up to 23 months. Two years ago, the recommendation
was expanded to include children up to age 5.

“Today’s vote really sends a strong message about just how se rious
influenza is,” said Kanowitz, a New York City resident.

This fall, New Jersey will become the first state in the nation to
require flu shots for infants and children entering licensed day care
centers or pre-schools. The state Public Health Council passed that
recommendation despite protest from anti-vaccine groups and oth ers
who oppose what they view as government usurping parental authority.

State Epidemiologist Eddy Bresnitz said that while he embraces the
new recommendations, New Jersey has no plans to make them mandatory.
Bresnitz, however, said he sends out an annual letter through schools
encouraging parents to have their children im munized against the flu
and will mention the CDC recommendations next fall.

Sue Collins, who co-founded the anti-vaccine advocacy group New
Jersey Alliance for Informed Choice, called the CDC’s new “blanket”
recommendation for pediatric flu shots a bad idea.

“I think the risks and side ef fects and unproven safety and effi
cacy studies do not warrant this,” said Collins, a mother of two who
lives in Long Hill. “The biggest thing is there is no data on how all
these vaccines react with each other.”

State and federal health officials, as well as most doctors, be lieve
the flu vaccine is safe for children, but many parents have raised
objections about the fact it contains thimerosal, a mercury-
containing organic compound used as a preservative in some multi-dose
vials of vaccine.

But there is flu vaccine doctors can order that is free of the
preservative, although it costs slightly more than the traditional
vaccine. Children, starting at 24 months, also have the option of
receiving a flu nasal spray instead of a shot.

Posted in Compulsory Drugging, Disinformation, Legislation to Oppose, Medical Hazards, Privacy, Vaccination | No Comments »

Polio Vaccination Compulsory in Belgium: Parents Jailed for Refusing Jab

Wednesday, February 27th, 2008

Here is where we are going if we do not act together to stop it.
The Polio vaccine is known to carry the CMV-40 virus which is a proven cause of leukemia. it also confers huge dangers (http://thepowerhour.com/news/polio_dangers.htm) including paralysis and death (http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean5.html#CHAPTER%20X:%20THE%20HIDDEN%20DANGERS%20IN%20POLIO%20VACCINE). In fact, authorities examining the results of Polio vaccination concluded in 1955

“The interval between inoculation and the first sign of paralysis ranged from 5 to 20 days and in a large proportion of cases it started in the limb on which the injection had been given. Another feature of the tragedy was that the numbers developing polio were far greater than would have been expected had no inoculations been given. In fact in the state of Idaho, according to a statement by Dr. Carl Eklund, one of the Government’s chief virus authorities, polio struck only vaccinated children in areas where there had been no cases of polio since the preceding autumn; in 9 out of 10 cases the paralysis occurred in the arms in which the vaccine had been injected.” (News Chronicle, May 6, 1955)

According to the Daily Telegraph (June 18, 1955) Mr. Peterson, State Health Director of Idaho, stopped further inoculations and stated: “We have lost confidence in the Salk Vaccine.” He also stated that he “holds the vaccine, together with the instructions for its manufacture, directly responsible for the outbreak of polio and the deaths that had occurred.”

Nonetheless, Polio vaccination is a huge business and, despite the well documented dangers associated with it, mandatory vaccination has become an item of public health dogma in many places around the world. In fact, in Belgium, polio vaccination is compulsory and is taken so seriously that two parents who refused the infection for their child have been fined and jailed. Here is the story as reported in the British Medical Journal.

If this is not an acceptable public health policy, now would be a good time to act since State ordered (as well as school and college ordered) compulsory vaccination scenarios are becoming more common by the day in the US. The US government has given itself the authority to institute compulsory vaccinations without proof, scientific input or medical review. Frighteningly, it has announced that it has stock piled enough Avian Flu vaccine for every man, woman and child in the US.

Of course, virologically, that is impossible if, as they maintain, the pandemic form of the H5N1 virus does not exist yet since a vaccine cannot be made against a virus that does not exist. So just what is in that vaccine? And why is this such a vital issue to the US government and the World Health Organization (WHO)? Could the Health Minister of Indonesia be correct? Could it be true that the WHO gave Indonesian Avian Flu samples to a bioweapons laboratory at Los Alamos Laboratories in New Mexico? And could her belief be accurate that the US and WHO are manipulating the alleged dangers for their own political and economic gain?

And, oh, by the way, just what is in that vaccine (or any other, for that matter)? Would it contain the material to stimulate antibodies to the hormone that women make when they are in early pregnancy, HCG, (Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin) so that woman become sterile? That technology was used by the WHO in Africa by mixing it with other vaccines, according to Dr. William Deagle, to “eliminate 150 million excess sub Saharan Africans” since it rendered woman receiving it sterile. The same technology was used, under the support of the US, the Norwegian Government and the WHO in South and Central America when women of child bearing age got tetanus shots (which also contained this material, although they were not informed that they were receiving a vaccine against getting pregnant.) Significantly, men and boys did not receive this vaccine although they are probably just as likely to step on a rusty nail as a woman or girl.

Or might it have a new virus, or an old one like the one allegedly disseminated in small pox vaccinations in Africa? Might it have the double dose of thimerisol (compared to US vaccines) that the vaccines so generously supplied to the children of the developing world by high profile philanthropies are reported to contain. Perhaps a new genetically engineered plague? Who knows. Without public comment and scientific review, the harm done by new vaccinations will only emerge later, perhaps much later. And in that context it would be well to recall that the FDA has removed your right to sue the manufacturer of any drug or vaccine for any damage it causes if it has been approved by the FDA for any purpose at all. So if you roll up your sleeve (or your child’s sleeve) for that “jab” as they call them in the UK, you are accepting whatever risks and damage comes your way without recourse or recompense.

if that does not work for you, now would be a very good time to take action to make it clear to our legislators that we do not accept the notion that our health freedom can be tossed aside at the whim of a government or school official and that we will not accept compulsory vaccination. Visit the home page of the Natural Solutions Foundation at www.HealthFreedomUSA.org to take the action steps listed there to stop compulsory vaccinations. And while you are there, take a moment to sign up for the Health Freedom eAlerts and make a tax deductible donation (https://www.staging.healthfreedomusa.com/index.php?page_id=189) to keep health freedom free! Recurring donations are especially helpful.
And don’t forget to join the No Forced Vaccination Forum on Yahoo.com (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/NSF-Panama/join) to share information and become part of an active community of like-minded activists.

Thanks for your activism.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

Two parents face jail for refusing polio jab
21 February 2008
Two sets of parents in Belgium have been sentenced to prison after they refused to vaccinate their children against polio. The vaccination is compulsory in Belgium.

The parents have been fined £4,100 ($8000) and sentenced to five months’ imprisonment.

They failed to appear in court, and the judge sentenced them on the basis of police evidence. He suspended the prison sentence, and has given the parents a second chance to have their children vaccinated.

Belgian law allows exceptions to the vaccine only if parents can prove that their child would have an adverse reaction to it.

(Source: British Medical Journal, 2008; 336: 348).

Posted in Activism, Compulsory Drugging, Medical Hazards, Miscellaneous, Privacy, Vaccination | No Comments »

Now For A Little Pharma Phun: How About Some Mother/Baby Abuse

Sunday, February 17th, 2008

“Thirty years ago…Merck’s aggressive chief executive Henry Gadsden told Fortune magazine of his distress that the company’s potential markets had been limited to sick people. Suggesting he’d rather Merck to be more like chewing gum maker Wrigleys, Gadsden said it had long been his dream to make drugs for healthy people. Because then, Merck would be able to “sell to everyone.” Three decades on, the late Henry Gadsden’s dream has come true.”
Alliance for Human Research Protection

Mothers, unborn babies and infants are the next group to “sell to”. If Congress has its way, every pregnant mother and her unborn baby, every new mother and her (perhaps) nursing infant in the US would be someone to “sell to”, not just by Merck, but by the entire pharmaceutical industry. Click http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=23065(http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=23065) to tell your Senators and Representatives that pregnant and new moms do not need drugging with meds that increase suicide and homicide and harm babies. Let them know that mental health decisions – like all health decisions – are a private matter, not a government one.

A new and shameless market ploy called “The Mother’s Act”, S 1375 IS (https://www.staging.healthfreedomusa.com/index.php?p=527), would make them the next market success by compelling screening and “offering” “appropriate” treatment which includes, as the bottom line, drugs. The bill was originally proposed in response to the death by suicide of Melanie Stokes, a pharmaceutical rep.who took her own life by leaping from a balcony several stories off of the ground. Contrary to popular understanding it was not post-partum depression that killed Melanie, but the numerous antidepressant drugs she was taking, which the FDA confirmed double the suicide risk.

In my professional opinion as a Child, Adult and Adolescent Psychiatrist and in my opinion as a health freedom advocate, the so-called “Mother’s Act” represents an act of aggression against mothers, babies and liberties, all at the same time. Pregnant woman and infants, along with new mothers and their babies, are an untapped market for psychoactive drugs like anti-depressants and anti-psychotics. There is an excellent reason that they are an untapped market for these drugs. Because they are so dangerous for these groups of people, these drugs, like most others, have been strictly off limits for pregnant and nursing moms and their babies.

But no longer. If Senators MENENDEZ (D-NJ), DURBIN (D-IL), SNOWE (R-ME), BROWN (D-OH), DODD (D-CT), and LAUTENBERG (D-NJ) have their way, pregnant mothers will be “screened” for tendencies toward “postpartum blues”, “depression” and “psychosis” and offered medications if they show any such tendencies. Another new market opened for the Pharma Pholks!

To my knowledge, this would bring to eight the number of pieces of Federal Legislation which make it possible to compel people living in the United States of America to take medication or set the stage for state compulsion to take those meds. The mis-named Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, BioShield, BioShield II, BioShield III, New Freedoms Initiative, No Child Left Behind and now the “Mother’s Act”.

Picture this scenario: a mother to be confesses to being nervous, worried, anxious or concerned about the impact of the coming baby (Signs of mental health in my book, by the way). A nurse, social worker, “counselor” or doctor turns her concern into pathology on a “screening tool” called a piece of paper (or computer screen). Mom’s public medical record (there are no confidential medical records in the US any longer unless you go to a physician who has exempted him/herself from HIPAA, [Health Insurance Privacy and Accountability Act] and pay for the services yourself) now states that she has a mental illness. Next, she will be “offered” drugs to “help her” with her normal feelings. These are the proverbial drugs for the worried well. What happens if they decide not to take them? Could mothers be forcibly imprisoned or held in a psychiatric facility? Of course they could. How about moms who have already given birth: could the same happen to them or could they loose custody of their children if they decided not to take the advice of the screener and take meds? You bet. Consider the invasive and unconstitutional losses of parental rights when parents do not medicate their kids. Consider the cases where chemotherapy or Ritalin (c) or Zoloft (c) or whatever have been forced upon kids and grown ups. Consider the forcible vaccination – and re-vaccination – of 2,700 Prince George’s County (MD) poor, mostly black children (1100 of whom had already been vaccinated fully but whose records had been lost by the school (according to its own admission).

Consider this fact: the March of Dimes advises against the use of these drugs in pregnant women since they can cause birth defects. Consider, too, the fact that the numerous psychiatric drugs which the woman who killed herself in the post partum period, Melanie Stokes, a pharmaceutical rep. (who took her own life by leaping from a balcony several stories off of the ground) doubled her risk of suicide according to the FDA while being a post partum mom did no such thing.

According to the officers of “Unite”, an organization opposing this legislation and the use of all other psychiatric medications,

“To simply screen women for post-partum mood disorders and ensure that they get “treatment,” we would be setting families up for the expectation of tragedy and increasing the chances of that actually happening when we refer them to medical “professionals” who are oblivious to the negative mind-altering effects of psychiatric drugs. A popular opinion among medical caregivers these days is that “post-partum mood disorders” must be a sign of an underlying biochemical imbalance and would be corrected with drugs.

Current drugs used on post-partum women include SSRIs, atypical antidepressants, and even antipsychotic drugs. These pose a significant risk to the immediate safety and health of women as well as their children and families. SSRIs carry a black box warning for suicide and the most popular one, Effexor (the same med. Andrea Yates was taking when she drowned her 5 children), has the words “homicidal ideation” listed as a side effect. “Nearly every recent case of infanticide which has made news can be clearly linked back to a psychiatric drug. These drugs endanger babies and mothers.”

Additionally, the drugs can be extremely addictive and also pose a risk to nurslings or babies exposed in subsequent pregnancies. Some babies have died from SIDS linked to drug exposure from pregnancy or nursing; others have experienced coma, seizures, GI bleeding, heart defects, lung problems, and many babies died before reaching full term or soon after birth” when their moms have been exposed to these drugs.

The bill does not address the fact that studies show that biological agents (antidepressants for example) cited in the bill and already prescribed to pregnant women can cause congenital heart birth defects where children have had to undergo open-heart surgeries to correct this. Also, some babies are being born with organs outside their bodies, requiring immediate surgery.”

Never mind that these drugs are untested in large scale use during pregnancy and are listed as drugs to avoid while pregnant and nursing. Never mind that the March of Dimes and the Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR) advise avoiding these drugs during those time. Never mind that the American Academy of Pediatrics cites an article which says, “Our knowledge [of the impact of psychiatric drugs on the fetus] will remain limited because prospective, randomized, and well-controlled investigational studies on the risks of exposure to psychoactive drugs during pregnancy are neither feasible nor ethical” in its Policy Statement on the Use of Psychoactive Medication During Pregnancy and Possible Effects on the Fetus and Newborn.

They also state, “Potential adverse effects for the fetus and the neonate include: 1) structural malformations, 2) acute neonatal effects including intoxication and neonatal abstinence syndromes, 3) intrauterine fetal death, 4) altered fetal growth, and 5) neurobehavioral teratogenicity. Neurobehavioral teratogenicity encompasses long-term central nervous system defects that result in delayed behavioral maturation, impaired problem solving, and impaired learning. Physical malformations do not necessarily accompany the functional deficits. Chronic in utero exposure to drugs may result in intoxication or tolerance postnatally. Neonatal drug withdrawal symptoms may occur when drug exposure ceases at birth. Specific and supportive therapy may be required if the newborn displays signs of continued drug effects or withdrawal. Long-term developmental and neurologic follow-up is appropriate, including consideration for referral to centers for national databases (eg, Teratology Information Services and Motherisk Program).” But never mind. A market is a market and this one is nearly virgin since the drugs in question have had posted warning advising their avoidance in pregnancy and nursing.

And what a market it is! The text of the bill states that although “The causes of postpartum depression are complex and unknown at this time” (which means that treatment designed to suppress the symptoms without dealing with the cause is a poor way to go), the market is vast since, ” Baby blues afflicts up to 80 percent of new mothers, postpartum depression occurs in 10 to 20 percent of new mothers, and postpartum psychosis strikes 1 in 1,000 new mothers.”

I am a Psychiatrist. I am trained in Child, Adolescent and Adult Psychiatry and I have a bias. I believe that drugs are dangerous and, in the case of psychiatric drugs, outstandingly dangerous, often causing long-term damage to the nervous system and other organs which are then treated with more drugs since the signs of drug toxicity are virtually identical to the reasons the patient was given the drug(s) in the first place, only more so. These drugs, increasingly used on the vulnerable nervous systems of younger and younger children with no deep understanding of their impact on the developing brains and bodies are poorly tested, vastly oversold and represent a huge profit center. Their only problem, from the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, is that there are large markets which are currently untouched. Once these drugs are administered, for whatever reason, they tend to become a legal habit supplied by your friendly pusher, your doctor. Although your pusher may be well-intentioned, his/her information about the safety and efficacy of these toxins (and make no mistake: they are known brain and liver toxins with a hefty dollop of endocrine disruption, pancreatic destruction and liver damage throw in for good measure) comes from the very people who make a profit from his/her use of these substances.

There is now, following nearly endless revelations in Congressional hearings, leaked information, legal actions against drug companies, etc., a clear patter of corruption and collusion to place dangerous drugs on the market and keep them there between the FDA and the manufacturers of these compounds.

With the collusion of the FDA, information on the dangers of these drugs, their tendency to increase suicidal and homicidal behaviors and their addictive impact are suppressed or minimized while new markets are sought out to allow the dream of Henry Gadsen to come true.

I think not! Remember, if we all think not, then we need to create a strong and effective grass roots organization to take this message to Congress (that’s what your emails do and what our Congressional education program does) and to the rest of America. That’s where your support comes in. Send this blog to your list. Ask them to visit the Natural Solutions Foundation website, www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and sign up for the free, secure and informative Health Freedom eAlerts (http://www.healthfreedomusa.
org/index.php?page_id=187).

And don’t forget donations: we really need your financial help. Your tax deductible donations make our work possible. Please consider making a generous recurring donation (https://www.staging.healthfreedomusa.com/index.php?page_id=189) right now.

Natural Solutions Foundation and You: Together We are More Than Just Talk!

Yours in health and freedom,

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

Posted in Compulsory Drugging, Get Involved, Hall of Shame, Legislation to Oppose, Privacy | No Comments »

Text of “Mother’s Act”, S. 1375

Sunday, February 17th, 2008

Source: Thomas.loc.gov


MOTHERS Act (Introduced in Senate)

S 1375 IS

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1375

To ensure that new mothers and their families are educated about postpartum depression, screened for symptoms, and provided with essential services, and to increase research at the National Institutes of Health on postpartum depression.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 11, 2007

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. BROWN, Mr. DODD, and Mr. LAUTENBERG) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

A BILL

To ensure that new mothers and their families are educated about postpartum depression, screened for symptoms, and provided with essential services, and to increase research at the National Institutes of Health on postpartum depression.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Mom’s Opportunity to Access Health, Education, Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression Act’ or the `MOTHERS Act’ .

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds as follows:

(1) Postpartum depression is a devastating mood disorder which strikes many women during and after pregnancy.

(2) Postpartum mood changes are common and can be broken into three subgroups: `baby blues,’ which is an extremely common and the less severe form of postpartum depression; postpartum mood and anxiety disorders, which are more severe than baby blues and can occur during pregnancy and anytime within the first year of the infant’s birth; and postpartum psychosis, which is the most extreme form of postpartum depression and can occur during pregnancy and up to twelve months after delivery.

(3) `Baby blues’ is characterized by mood swings, feelings of being overwhelmed, tearfulness, irritability, poor sleep, mood changes, and a sense of vulnerability that usually starts in the first week and resolves without treatment by the end of the second week postpartum.

(4) The symptoms of postpartum mood and anxiety disorders are as defined in the latest edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), as published by American Psychological Association.

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

(6) Baby blues afflicts up to 80 percent of new mothers, postpartum depression occurs in 10 to 20 percent of new mothers, and postpartum psychosis strikes 1 in 1,000 new mothers.

(7) The causes of postpartum depression are complex and unknown at this time; however, contributing factors include: a steep and rapid drop in hormone levels after childbirth; difficulty during labor or pregnancy; a premature birth; a miscarriage; feeling overwhelmed, uncertain, frustrated or anxious about one’s new role as a mother ; a lack of support from one’s spouse, friends or family; marital strife; stressful events in life such as death of a loved one, financial problems, or physical or mental abuse; a family history of depression or mood disorders; a previous history of major depression or anxiety; or a prior postpartum depression.

(8) 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.

(9) All too often postpartum depression goes undiagnosed or untreated due to the social stigma surrounding depression and mental illness, the romanticization of motherhood, the new mother’s inability to self-diagnose her condition, the new mother’s shame or embarrassment over discussing her depression so near to the birth of her child, the lack of understanding in society and the medical community of the complexity of postpartum depression, and economic pressures placed on hospitals and providers.

(10) Untreated, postpartum depression can lead to further depression, substance abuse, loss of employment, divorce and further social alienation, self-destructive behavior, or even suicide.

(11) Untreated, postpartum depression impacts society through its effect on the infant’s physical and psychological and cognitive development, child abuse, neglect or death of the infant or other siblings, and the disruption of the family.

(12) This Act shares the goals of the Melanie Blocker-Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act and will help new mothers who are battling with postpartum conditions.

TITLE I–DELIVERY OF SERVICES REGARDING POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION AND PSYCHOSIS

SEC. 101. DELIVERY OF SERVICES REGARDING POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION AND PSYCHOSIS.

Subpart 3 of part B of title V of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb-31 et seq.) is amended–

(1) by inserting after the subpart heading the following:

`CHAPTER I–GENERAL PROVISIONS’;

and

(2) by adding at the end thereof the following:

`CHAPTER II–DELIVERY OF SERVICES REGARDING POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION AND PSYCHOSIS

`SEC. 520K. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM OF GRANTS.

`(a) In General- The Secretary shall in accordance with this chapter make grants to provide for projects for the establishment, operation, and coordination of effective and cost-efficient systems to–

`(1) provide education to women who have recently given birth, and their families, concerning postpartum depression, postpartum mood and anxiety disorders, and postpartum psychosis (referred to in this chapter as `postpartum conditions’) before such women leave their birthing centers and to screen new mothers for postpartum conditions during their first year of postnatal checkup visits, including the standard 6-week postnatal checkup visit; and

`(2) provide for the delivery of essential services to individuals with postpartum conditions and their families.

`(b) Recipients of Grants- A grant under subsection (a) may be made to an entity only if the entity–

`(1) is–

`(A) in the case of a grant to carry out the activities described in subsection (c)(1), a State; and

`(B) in the case of a grant to carry out the activities described in subsection (c)(2), a public or nonprofit private entity, which may include a State or local government; a public or nonprofit private hospital, community-based organization, hospice, ambulatory care facility, community health center, migrant health center, tribal government or territory, or homeless health center; or other appropriate public or nonprofit private entity; and

`(2) submits to the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require.

`(c) Certain Activities-

`(1) EDUCATION-

`(A) IN GENERAL- To the extent practicable and appropriate, the Secretary shall ensure that projects under subsection (a)(1) develop policies and procedures to ensure that education concerning postpartum conditions is provided to women in accordance with subparagraph (B), that training programs regarding such education are carried out at health facilities within the State, and that screening and referral is provided in accordance with subparagraph (C).

`(B) REQUIREMENTS- A State that receives a grant or contract under subsection (a)(1) shall ensure that postpartum condition education complies with the following:

`(i) Physicians, certified nurse midwives, certified midwives, nurses, and other licensed health care professionals within the State who provide prenatal and postnatal care to women shall also provide education to women and their families concerning postpartum conditions to promote earlier diagnosis and treatment.

`(ii) All birthing facilities in the State shall provide new mothers and fathers, and other family members as appropriate, with complete information concerning postpartum conditions, including its symptoms, methods of coping with the illness, and treatment resources prior to such mothers leaving the birthing facility after a birth.

`(iii) Physicians, certified nurse midwives, certified midwives, nurses, and other licensed health care professionals within the State who provide prenatal and postnatal care to women shall include fathers and other family members, as appropriate, in both the education and treatment processes to help them better understand the nature and causes of postpartum conditions.

`(C) SCREENING AND REFERRAL- A State that receives a grant or contract under subsection (a)(1) shall ensure that new mothers, during visits to a physician, certified nurse midwife, certified midwife, nurse, or licensed healthcare professional who is licensed or certified by the State, within the first year after the birth of their child, are offered screenings for postpartum conditions by using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), or other appropriate tests. If the results of such screening provide warning signs for postpartum conditions, the new mother shall be referred to an appropriate mental healthcare provider.

`(D) SUBGRANTS- A State that receives a grant or contract under subsection (a)(1) to carry out activities under this paragraph may award subgrants to entities described in subsection (b)(1)(B) to enable such entities to provide education of this type described in subparagraph (B).

`(2) SERVICES- To the extent practicable and appropriate, the Secretary shall ensure that projects under subsection (a)(2) provide services for the diagnosis and management of postpartum conditions. Activities that the Secretary may authorize for such projects may also include the following:

`(A) Delivering or enhancing outpatient and home-based health and support services, including case management, screening and comprehensive treatment services for individuals with or at risk for postpartum conditions, and delivering or enhancing support services for their families.

`(B) Delivering or enhancing inpatient care management services that ensure the well being of the mother and family and the future development of the infant.

`(C) Improving the quality, availability, and organization of health care and support services (including transportation services, attendant care, homemaker services, day or respite care, and providing counseling on financial assistance and insurance) for individuals with postpartum conditions and support services for their families.

`(d) Integration With Other Programs- To the extent practicable and appropriate, the Secretary shall integrate the program under this title with other grant programs carried out by the Secretary, including the program under section 330.

`SEC. 520L. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

`The Secretary may provide technical assistance to assist entities in complying with the requirements of this chapter in order to make such entities eligible to receive grants under section 520K.

`SEC. 520M. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

`For the purpose of carrying out this chapter, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2010.’.

TITLE II–RESEARCH ON POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION AND PSYCHOSIS

SEC. 201. CONSENSUS RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND PLAN CONCERNING POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION AND PSYCHOSIS.

Part B of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`SEC. 409J. CONSENSUS RESEARCH CONFERENCE AND PLAN CONCERNING POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION AND PSYCHOSIS.

`(a) Consensus Research Conference and Plan-

`(1) CONFERENCE- The Secretary, acting through the Director of NIH, the Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and the heads of other Federal agencies that administer Federal health programs including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall organize a series of national meetings that are designed to develop a research plan for postpartum depression and psychosis (referred to in this section as `postpartum condition’).

`(2) PLAN- The Secretary, taking into account the findings of the research conference under paragraph (1), shall develop a research plan relating to postpartum conditions. Such plan shall include–

`(A) basic research concerning the etiology and causes of postpartum conditions;

`(B) epidemiological studies to address the frequency and natural history of postpartum conditions and the differences among racial and ethnic groups with respect to such conditions;

`(C) the development of improved diagnostic techniques relating to postpartum conditions; and

`(D) clinical research for the development and evaluation of new treatments for postpartum conditions, including new biological agents.

`(3) REPORT- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report concerning the research plan under paragraph (2).

`(b) Activity Relating to Research Plan-

`(1) IN GENERAL- After the development of the research plan under subsection (a)(1), the Secretary, acting through the Director of NIH shall expand and intensify research and related activities of the Institutes relating to postpartum conditions in a manner appropriate to carry out such plan, and in particular shall direct research efforts to carry out such plan.

`(2) REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the development of the research plan under subsection (a)(1), and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the progress made with respect to such plan and the status of ongoing activities regarding postpartum conditions at the National Institutes of Health.’.

Posted in Compulsory Drugging, Legislation to Oppose, Privacy | No Comments »

Newer Entries »