RE: Re: Protecting Mothers from the Mothers Act

[Guest guest]

Thank you Ingrid.

Alice, it is dire in practice if not in unambiguous verbiage. Ingrid shows how

the " recommendation " will become, in practice, coercion. Just like the fed's

CDC's vaccine " recommendations " become state level vaccine forced mandates.

That's why Dr. Laibow and I want to see a simple addition to the pending bill,

a sentence that would make it clear: " Nothing contained in this Act or any

United States statute shall be construed to intimidate, require or coerce any

pre or post partum woman to receive any psychiatric drug without her fully

informed, voluntary written consent. "

When Congress decided to reward the FDA for its failures last year by giving

it more power to abuse (Sen. Kennedy's misnamed FDA Revitalization Act, that I

call the FDA enabling act] we called upon the Natural Solutions Foundation's

Mouse Warriors and over a hundred thousand messages went to Congress demanding

protection. We visited key members of Congress' offices supported the DSHEA

protective language that got added to the bill, but not the bill itself.

That's what we'd like to do with the Mother's Act. There will be an Action

Item about this in the next NSF eblast and I'll be in DC to educate Congress

about this on March 24th. Time is short, but we hope to generate enough

messages to get action from Congress.

That's why we have to get as many people to sign up to the eAlert newsletter

system as possible, at www.healthfreedomusa.org - scroll to the bottom of the

page.

Ralph Fucetola JD

- RE: Re: ng pregnancy as MENTAL Ilness!

> The last sentence of this chapter says it all!

> "

> `© 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.

>

> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1375

>

>

http://www.wellnessresources.com/newsroom/index.php/content/articles/mothers

>

_act_places_spotlight_on_faulty_healthcare_system/?source=Email & camp=news031

> 308

>

> Ingrid

>

>

> None of the links came through on the original message, but I read the

> text of the bill online here:

>

>

> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1375:

>

>

>

>

> and I don't see anything that hints at it having " the net affect of

>

> reclassifying the natural process of pregnancy and birth as a mental

> disorder that requires the use of unproven and extremely dangerous

> psychotropic medications " . All I see is that they want to institute

> regular screenings for PPD and PPP at the mother's post-natal appointments

> and make sure women and their families are educated about PPD/PPP. And yes,

> they're also wanting to fund research for determining the cause(s) of

> PPD/PPP and developing treatments for it, but nothing I see includes " baby

> blues " as being one of the things that needs treating.

>

>

> If I'm missing something here, please show me; I'm not claiming to have

> the whole bill figured out, and I did read it with my toddler's TV show

> blaring in the background, so it's possible I missed something. It just

> doesn't seem as dire as the original email indicated, that's all. Please

> show me what I've missed....

>

>

> -Alison

>

> No virus found in this outgoing message.

> Checked by AVG.

> Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.6/1318 - Release Date: 03/07/2008

> 14:01

>