MOTHERS Act
22 Sep 2009, 6:48 pm
DW_a_mom wrote:
LiberalJustice wrote:
number5 wrote:
You should really read the bill before you comment on it. I read it and it is nothing more than a grant for healthcare providers to provide education on postpardum depression or psychosis to all women after pregnancy (including those not resulting in a live birth), their families, and the general public via PSA's. It also allows the National Institute for Mental Health to conduct a comprehensive study on the subject as well as provides funding for treatment in certain cases, including home-based health services, transportation services, and respite care.
This sort of research and funding is long overdue, IMO. It's very similar to the shaken baby syndrome campaign. There is absolutely no mandate for screening nor is there any provision for preventing a mom to take her baby home. No need or excuse for fear mongoring in this instance.
The text states that it is a FEDERAL bill, do you think there is one woman it would exclude?This sort of research and funding is long overdue, IMO. It's very similar to the shaken baby syndrome campaign. There is absolutely no mandate for screening nor is there any provision for preventing a mom to take her baby home. No need or excuse for fear mongoring in this instance.
I don't rely on sites or quotes that appear to have the sole purpose of fear mongering.
A lot of crazy things get proposed in congress, but few will ever become reality, and if something really is about to, you will be hearing about it from every so called mainstream media source.
There is always the possibility of unintended consequences, of course, but the more extreme of those (which the sort of thing you are talking about would be) usually get caught and fixed vary quickly.
The world does not believe that every mother should be screened before taking home her child; it won't happen.
_________________
"I Would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson
Adopted mother to a cat named Charlotte, and grandmother to 3 kittens.
22 Sep 2009, 6:51 pm
MartyMoose wrote:
We should have an IQ test before people are allowed to even get pregnant
IQ has little to do with being a good mother.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
22 Sep 2009, 6:52 pm
LiberalJustice wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
LiberalJustice wrote:
number5 wrote:
You should really read the bill before you comment on it. I read it and it is nothing more than a grant for healthcare providers to provide education on postpardum depression or psychosis to all women after pregnancy (including those not resulting in a live birth), their families, and the general public via PSA's. It also allows the National Institute for Mental Health to conduct a comprehensive study on the subject as well as provides funding for treatment in certain cases, including home-based health services, transportation services, and respite care.
This sort of research and funding is long overdue, IMO. It's very similar to the shaken baby syndrome campaign. There is absolutely no mandate for screening nor is there any provision for preventing a mom to take her baby home. No need or excuse for fear mongoring in this instance.
The text states that it is a FEDERAL bill, do you think there is one woman it would exclude?This sort of research and funding is long overdue, IMO. It's very similar to the shaken baby syndrome campaign. There is absolutely no mandate for screening nor is there any provision for preventing a mom to take her baby home. No need or excuse for fear mongoring in this instance.
I don't rely on sites or quotes that appear to have the sole purpose of fear mongering.
A lot of crazy things get proposed in congress, but few will ever become reality, and if something really is about to, you will be hearing about it from every so called mainstream media source.
There is always the possibility of unintended consequences, of course, but the more extreme of those (which the sort of thing you are talking about would be) usually get caught and fixed vary quickly.
The world does not believe that every mother should be screened before taking home her child; it won't happen.
Yes but its not THAT easy.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
22 Sep 2009, 6:56 pm
DW_a_mom wrote:
LiberalJustice wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
LiberalJustice wrote:
number5 wrote:
You should really read the bill before you comment on it. I read it and it is nothing more than a grant for healthcare providers to provide education on postpardum depression or psychosis to all women after pregnancy (including those not resulting in a live birth), their families, and the general public via PSA's. It also allows the National Institute for Mental Health to conduct a comprehensive study on the subject as well as provides funding for treatment in certain cases, including home-based health services, transportation services, and respite care.
This sort of research and funding is long overdue, IMO. It's very similar to the shaken baby syndrome campaign. There is absolutely no mandate for screening nor is there any provision for preventing a mom to take her baby home. No need or excuse for fear mongoring in this instance.
The text states that it is a FEDERAL bill, do you think there is one woman it would exclude?This sort of research and funding is long overdue, IMO. It's very similar to the shaken baby syndrome campaign. There is absolutely no mandate for screening nor is there any provision for preventing a mom to take her baby home. No need or excuse for fear mongoring in this instance.
I don't rely on sites or quotes that appear to have the sole purpose of fear mongering.
A lot of crazy things get proposed in congress, but few will ever become reality, and if something really is about to, you will be hearing about it from every so called mainstream media source.
There is always the possibility of unintended consequences, of course, but the more extreme of those (which the sort of thing you are talking about would be) usually get caught and fixed vary quickly.
The world does not believe that every mother should be screened before taking home her child; it won't happen.
Yes but its not THAT easy.
_________________
"I Would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson
Adopted mother to a cat named Charlotte, and grandmother to 3 kittens.
22 Sep 2009, 7:34 pm
LiberalJustice wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
LiberalJustice wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
LiberalJustice wrote:
number5 wrote:
You should really read the bill before you comment on it. I read it and it is nothing more than a grant for healthcare providers to provide education on postpardum depression or psychosis to all women after pregnancy (including those not resulting in a live birth), their families, and the general public via PSA's. It also allows the National Institute for Mental Health to conduct a comprehensive study on the subject as well as provides funding for treatment in certain cases, including home-based health services, transportation services, and respite care.
This sort of research and funding is long overdue, IMO. It's very similar to the shaken baby syndrome campaign. There is absolutely no mandate for screening nor is there any provision for preventing a mom to take her baby home. No need or excuse for fear mongoring in this instance.
The text states that it is a FEDERAL bill, do you think there is one woman it would exclude?This sort of research and funding is long overdue, IMO. It's very similar to the shaken baby syndrome campaign. There is absolutely no mandate for screening nor is there any provision for preventing a mom to take her baby home. No need or excuse for fear mongoring in this instance.
I don't rely on sites or quotes that appear to have the sole purpose of fear mongering.
A lot of crazy things get proposed in congress, but few will ever become reality, and if something really is about to, you will be hearing about it from every so called mainstream media source.
There is always the possibility of unintended consequences, of course, but the more extreme of those (which the sort of thing you are talking about would be) usually get caught and fixed vary quickly.
The world does not believe that every mother should be screened before taking home her child; it won't happen.
Yes but its not THAT easy.
With all due respect, you sound completely paranoid. The bill is a fairly easy read and it is aimed at helping new moms, not hurting them. I went through undiagnosed PPD with my firstborn and it was horrible. I felt completely miserable and terrified for about 3 months. The worst part for me was the guilt over not enjoying my baby and fear that I was doing everything wrong. I only wish I had the knowledge about PPD then. Things would have been a lot easier on us. Many cases of PPD can be treated simply with therapy and the knowledge that it is a real condition for which no one should feel shame for. This is a wonderful bill that will serve to help many moms and their families.
Even if you decide to fall for the myths put out there by a bunch of Scientologists, you still must consider what the possible motives of the government would be to separate moms from their babies. It makes no practical sense. Why on earth would the government want to take responsibility for a bunch of newborns with depressed moms. I don't think PPD can even be diagnosed until at least 2 weeks or so after delivery and most moms and babies are sent home between 2-5 days (that's all insurance companies are obligated to pay for). Many moms go through the baby blues in the first few weeks so it takes time to be able to distinguish that from PPD.
22 Sep 2009, 7:42 pm
number5 wrote:
LiberalJustice wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
LiberalJustice wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
LiberalJustice wrote:
number5 wrote:
You should really read the bill before you comment on it. I read it and it is nothing more than a grant for healthcare providers to provide education on postpardum depression or psychosis to all women after pregnancy (including those not resulting in a live birth), their families, and the general public via PSA's. It also allows the National Institute for Mental Health to conduct a comprehensive study on the subject as well as provides funding for treatment in certain cases, including home-based health services, transportation services, and respite care.
This sort of research and funding is long overdue, IMO. It's very similar to the shaken baby syndrome campaign. There is absolutely no mandate for screening nor is there any provision for preventing a mom to take her baby home. No need or excuse for fear mongoring in this instance.
The text states that it is a FEDERAL bill, do you think there is one woman it would exclude?This sort of research and funding is long overdue, IMO. It's very similar to the shaken baby syndrome campaign. There is absolutely no mandate for screening nor is there any provision for preventing a mom to take her baby home. No need or excuse for fear mongoring in this instance.
I don't rely on sites or quotes that appear to have the sole purpose of fear mongering.
A lot of crazy things get proposed in congress, but few will ever become reality, and if something really is about to, you will be hearing about it from every so called mainstream media source.
There is always the possibility of unintended consequences, of course, but the more extreme of those (which the sort of thing you are talking about would be) usually get caught and fixed vary quickly.
The world does not believe that every mother should be screened before taking home her child; it won't happen.
Yes but its not THAT easy.
With all due respect, you sound completely paranoid. The bill is a fairly easy read and it is aimed at helping new moms, not hurting them. I went through undiagnosed PPD with my firstborn and it was horrible. I felt completely miserable and terrified for about 3 months. The worst part for me was the guilt over not enjoying my baby and fear that I was doing everything wrong. I only wish I had the knowledge about PPD then. Things would have been a lot easier on us. Many cases of PPD can be treated simply with therapy and the knowledge that it is a real condition for which no one should feel shame for. This is a wonderful bill that will serve to help many moms and their families.
Even if you decide to fall for the myths put out there by a bunch of Scientologists, you still must consider what the possible motives of the government would be to separate moms from their babies. It makes no practical sense. Why on earth would the government want to take responsibility for a bunch of newborns with depressed moms. I don't think PPD can even be diagnosed until at least 2 weeks or so after delivery and most moms and babies are sent home between 2-5 days (that's all insurance companies are obligated to pay for). Many moms go through the baby blues in the first few weeks so it takes time to be able to distinguish that from PPD.
_________________
"I Would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson
Adopted mother to a cat named Charlotte, and grandmother to 3 kittens.
22 Sep 2009, 7:45 pm
MartyMoose wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
MartyMoose wrote:
We should have an IQ test before people are allowed to even get pregnant
IQ has little to do with being a good mother.
yes but it does have to do with the stupidity of your offspring
No it doesn't. Plenty of smart parents have kids with low IQ's and at least some kids with high IQ's have stupid parents. IQ tests are basically a novelty anyway. All they can tell you is how well you can take an IQ test.
Do you really believe that intelligence should be the deciding factor as to whether or not a couple should have kids? There are plenty of "smart" parents who beat their kids, drink and drive, and severely neglect their children. I would prefer a "dumb" and loving parent to a "smart" a**hole parent anyday.
22 Sep 2009, 10:25 pm
MartyMoose wrote:
We should have an IQ test before people are allowed to even get pregnant
read this, please:
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
23 Sep 2009, 7:52 am
this idea is the stupidest thing ever.
If the parents can't take the baby home, who can?
Though I don't agree with IQ testing before getting pregnant I do think that this kind of testing comes too late for the purpose. If the govenment wouldn't want specific woman to be mothers... they should be prevented from getting pregnant in the first place. Taking babies away from their mothers is just plain dumb. It would lead to disattached children, traumatized and inbelievably angry moms and the biggest fosterparent deficiency that ever was...
23 Sep 2009, 8:55 pm
Its is bad but in way I see people on a daily basis who should not be allowed to breed.
_________________
When will they learn,all Humans are equaly inferior to robots-Bender
You idiots I said Peaberry this is sandalwood,Bender if you cant push sandalwood your not cut out for this league.
23 Sep 2009, 11:13 pm
skafather84 wrote:
LiberalJustice wrote:
claire333 wrote:
"The web page cannot be found"
Try this link, then. http://www.cchr.org/mothers_act.html"The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) is an advocacy group established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology"
All you need to know.
Great research there, man. And I concur. This hidden tidbit of data renders any critical analysis of said bill by this organization extremely biased and therefore unreliable.
Guys, this HAS happened before on WP, when someone has misinterpreted a current piece of legislation and made a mountain out of a mole hole. I'm not saying the OP was wrong in trying to bring this to our attention, as a matter of fact I applaud his efforts to keep our community apprised of any potential threat to our rights as individuals. But for the love of all that is holy PLEASE doublecheck your sources. The internet may be the biggest source of information in this age, but most of the time that information is part a free for all between special interest groups trying to rally people to their side. Obviously this is one of those groups. I would definitely want to keep an eye on the development of this bill as it passes through Congress, but I highly doubt it is the human rights travesty that the CCHR makes it out to be. Our politicians in Washington may be greedy, power-grabbing warmongers, but they're not stupid. They know their limits, and they know that if the bill was really as bad as the CCHR claims, it would consititute a waste of time and resources because the minute they try to enforce it, it will get shot down in the courts. Trust me, we're not that far yet.
_________________
"Yeah, so this one time, I tried playing poker with tarot cards... got a full house, and about four people died." ~ Unknown comedian
Happy New Year from WP's resident fortune-teller! May the cards be ever in your favor.
17 Oct 2009, 12:11 pm
ruveyn wrote:
LiberalJustice wrote:
A sweeping government policy for all new births in the United States has just passed the House of Representatives and is now headed to the Senate. The Mother’s Act, if passed, will mandate that all new mothers be screened by means of a list of subjective questions that will determine if each mother is mentally fit to take their newborn home from the hospital. Just imagine that after your child is born, you are told that you can’t take them home since a multiple choice questionnaire wasn’t answered "correctly". Just imagine being told that the only way you can take your child home is if you or your spouse goes into treatment or on anti-depressants. It just doesn’t make sense. Unfortunately, this bill is on a fast track–No public debate, and no public disclosure of the broad impact on our society that it will have.
Sounds bad. I suspect it won't last in a court case attacking its constitutionality. I can see a ninth amendment case right off.
A law like this is a clear case of Good Intentions running amok.
PS. What is the number of the bill in the House and in the Senate?
ruveyn
_________________
"I Would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson
Adopted mother to a cat named Charlotte, and grandmother to 3 kittens.
