Stress Testing The MOTHERS Act

Natural News ^ | May 7, 2009 | Kelly Patricia O'Meara

[Windflier]

There is none more deserving of stress testing than the proposed MOTHERS Act.

On the surface, the MOTHERS Act reflects its sponsors overwhelming compassion and empathy for women suffering from alleged mental health disorders resulting from childbirth – often referred to as Postpartum Depression. But when one conducts a brief stress test on important sections of the legislation, taxpayers may find that this costly and sweeping mental health legislation actually fails women of America, but goes a long way in inflating the balance sheets of one of the most lucrative industries in the nation – big Pharma.

For instance, the MOTHERS Act legislation that currently is pending in the U.S. Senate states that the Secretary of Health and Human Services may "make grants to eligible entities…" to deliver essential services to individuals with a postpartum condition. What the legislation doesn't delineate is who and what entities may receive these grants.

Are these "entities" funded by pharmaceutical companies? Lawmakers have not specified what constitutes an "entity" so it will be impossible to know if there are conflicts of interest between those who develop the screening tools and conduct research and the pharmaceutical companies who most certainly will benefit financially from the increased diagnosing.

Furthermore, no research guidelines have been provided for public disclosure. This is no small issue, given that the Senate Finance Committee recently exposed the conflicts of interest of the top ten psychiatric researchers in the U.S. who had received millions of dollars in pharmaceutical funding. Where is the guarantee that the "entities" are not pharmaceutical front-men?

The legislation also allows for the "expansion and intensification of activities" into the research of Postpartum conditions and "evaluation of new treatments."

This is a humdinger. Despite ever-increasing published data and clinical studies challenging the safety of antidepressants and other antipsychotic drugs, there is no guidance provided by lawmakers to mandate that the public be made aware of the avalanche of scientific data that not only questions the efficacy of the drugs available to mothers suffering from these conditions, but also warning of the dangers associated with currently available "treatments."

(more at link)

[Windflier]

The Mothers Act is due to be voted on soon by the U.S. Senate. This is the Big Pharma-advocated law that would require the mandatory screening of all expectant mothers for depression -- with the intent of drugging them if symptoms are present.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> This is the Big Pharma-advocated law that would require the mandatory screening of all expectant mothers for depression — with the intent of drugging them if symptoms are present.

How do they propose to screen somebody for Depression? It is notoriously difficult to diagnose.

And to make such screening “mandatory?” I’d like to see how they intend to make that work.

Pharmaceutical interventions are often helpful for some people, but they are not the only way or even the best way for all.

Speaking as one who is very much in favor of moves to increase awareness and treatment of mental illnesses like Depression, I am quite wary of these measures proposed. They are probably well-intentioned, but as they say, “The road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions.”

[sportutegrl]

require the mandatory screening of all expectant mothers for depression -- with the intent of drugging them if symptoms are present.

Drugging pregnant women. Why not, it worked so well with thalidimide. Even waiting until the baby is born means tainted breastmilk or fewer breastfed babies.

[freekitty]

It’s beginning to look like the government is funding all kinds of things just so they can raid them for their own personal agendas. What a con job.

[Windflier]

...make such screening “mandatory?” I’d like to see how they intend to make that work.

This alone should cause people to be alarmed about this legislation. Personally, I feel that it's at least an infringement of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

Agreed that it will be interesting to see how the government intends to actually enforce this, if it passes.

[Windflier]

What a con job.

That's an appropriate comment on the whole Obama regime.

[Windflier]

Drugging pregnant women. Why not, it worked so well with thalidimide.

I expect most mothers to flat refuse this "treatment", due to objections over the fundamental wrong of government mandated medical intervention, and due to fears and uncertainties about the side-effects of the drugs used.