A disturbing piece of legislation is being sneaked into U.S. law that will have a detrimental effect on the civil liberties and constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly those starting a family.
A sweeping new policy for all births in the United States has just passed the House of Representatives and is now headed to the Senate.
The “Mother’s Act” will make it compulsory that all new mothers are screened by means of a list of subjective questions that will determine if each mother is mentally fit to take their newborn child home from the hospital.
Under this Act, after your child is born, you can be told that you can’t take them home because a multiple choice questionnaire wasn’t answered “correctly.”
You can be placed in the position that the only way you can take your child home with you is if you or your spouse goes into treatment or on anti-depressants. Anti- depressants can cause psychosis, delusions, and even homicidal or suicidal thoughts. This is a matter of very extensive documentation and the harm done by anti-depressants is currently the subject of a great deal of controversy, with human rights, health and consumer groups campaigning to bring the dangers to public attention.
Many people, for health, ethical, religious and other reasons reject drug taking and have turned instead to modern nutritional remedies for their mental well-being as well as prayer, meditation and so forth.
Modern advances in nutrition have tended to render the need to take dangerous pharmaceutical concoctions outmoded the way medical advance once did to leeches and witch’s brews. However, it appears that under this new law such people may not have a choice but to take drugs and suffer the consequences thereof, if they want to have their new-born child come home with them. The law may grant a psychiatrist the power to overide your own judgement or conscience in the matter.
The problem is, one cannot be absolutely certain of the exact consequences of this legislation as it is on a “fast track,” which means no public debate, no public disclosure of the broad impact of it upon our society and very little opportunity for watchdogs such as the Citizens Commission in Human Rights to warn the public of any dangers.
When a Bill is fast-tracked in this way, carefully avoiding public scrutiny, one can be forgiven for suspecting the motives and concluding the new law contains measures the public will not like. Otherwise, why fast-track it?