tagline
WETA

Search LD OnLine

Get our free newsletter

advertisement

Forums
IEPs and Legal Issues

The Mother's Act!


Author Message
Joined: May 05, 2008
Posts: 424
Other Topics
Posted Apr 04, 2009 at 2:25:18 PM
Subject: The Mother's Act!

An interesting law i have come across recently is one called The Mother's act. This is not the first time the pharmaceutical companies have tried to establish it. But once again it is rearing it's vile ugly head.

Essentially, what it does is it opens up every woman who gets pregnant in America, to the mental health profession. It makes it legal and actually part of procedure to screen all pregnant women for any sort of LD or any psych issues. It makes it *mandatory* procedure. At that point it then allows the doctor to prescribe drugs *WHILE* the woman is pregnant should they think they are in order (or if the drug companies pay them enough to test their newest evil on pregnant women and their fetuses.) Women would *NOT* have any right to deny this medical intrusion into their privacy. Nor would they have any control and in some states the questions and screening would be performed on the sly and over analyzed so the mother to be wouldn't even know she was being screened.

The problems with this law are MANY.

1. NO such law is being considered to deal with fathers (this is discrimination against women.) It is fact that the rate of violence against children committed by men is far higher than the rate of violence against children comitted by women. (Which is the reason for this law to even be in the works to begin with. To protect children.)

2. What the hell happened to the right to privacy in this country??? This law strips women and women alone of the right to privacy which is in the bill of rights or the constitution.

3. Babies born addicted to drugs are hardly safer than those born to unscreened women when you consider that women almost never harm their own children where as the birth defects resulting from being born to a mother forced to take drugs against her will due to an intrusive psych screen that violates civil laws would raise the number of infant defects and again babies born on drugs.

4. This law violates the spirit of Roe V Wade. Roe V Wade, essentially protects the rights of women to own their own bodies including their reproductive systems. It strips women of the right to control their own brain chemistry. Which is as much an afront as being told "sorry! You are a communal mating cow, now go be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen because that is what society thinks you should do. And your body belongs to society not to you!" Last time i checked my brain and it's chemistry was safely inside my head which is part of my body. I have a right to throw out an unwanted fetus but i may not have the right soon to throw out an unwanted drug that i feel is unnecesary?

5. This law is going to be in effect for *ALL* women regardless of their psych history or past beharviors or violent crimes. If it were limited to those with a violent history especially one towards children i might consider backing this law. But unfortunately it is not designed for that. It is designed, to get 2 new clients for the price of 1 for the pharmaceutical companies. Imagine your child diagnosed with ADHD and fed ritalin before it's little body has even become viable in your womb!

Please, come out against this law. Please write to your congress people and demand rthe rights for women that my mother marched for in the 70s and that my grandmother was tortured for (gforced feedings in prison while jailed for protesting to get women the vote during hunger strikes.) Please demand that wanted fetuses not be subjected to gthe abuse of pharmaceuticals. These drugs have not and are not designed for children and even less so for fetuses. Demand their right to be born of drug free mothers so long as those mothers have no history of serious violence and are not making any threats then what business is it of anyone let alone the state to legally require psych screening? The drug companies are already taking advantage of the lack of rights that belong to our children tell them NO they can NOT have our fetuses also! Tell your congress person/s that this law is pure evil and that you do not want to see it put into effect. If not for yourself, do it for your daughters.

Back to top Profile Email
Rosco P. Coltrane
Joined Jun 28, 2007
Posts: 47

Other Topics
Posted:Apr 13, 2009 3:44:19 PM

The "Octomom" could have used the Mother's Act....she definitely needed a psych screener....A law that forces pregnant women to take drugs??? Don't believe it...

Back to top Profile Email
Mandi
Joined May 05, 2008
Posts: 424

Other Topics
Posted:Apr 13, 2009 9:14:58 PM

Look it up. Because it is true. A law that forces women who are screened against their will or without even being aware they are being screened, then forced to take any drug prescribed to them. Check it out on face book if you like google it.

I won't disagree with you on octomom. But the fact is, men are responsible for 85% of violent crimes in the usa (don't believe me, check out the book Men Evolutionary And Life History, by Richard G. Bribriescas. He is or was the assistant professor of Anthropology at Yale.) The book is published by Harvard University Press. He sites Daly and Wilson 1983 for that statistic on violence.

So if men are responsible for 85% of national violent crime that would also include and cover child murder and abuse. Which means the mother's act would serve children far better if it were called the father's act and geared towards men instead. As women are responsible for around onlyy 15% of violent crimes in america, and that would include child killing and ofcourse abuse.

For every Octomom there are atleast 5 male child batterers is essentially what this is saying. So lets protect children by screening for the next Octomom.... That is ridiculous!

http://yedies.blogspot.com/2007/09/mothers-act-let-your-voice-be-heard-on.html

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-the-dangerous-and-invasive-mothers-act

http://birthfriend.wordpress.com/2008/02/14/stop-the-mothers-act/

http://www.uniteforlife.org/

http://www.ablechild.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&p=202

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1918/t/7870/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26855

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4B8I_8wz6I

http://www.naturalnews.com/022789.html

http://www.newswithviews.com/Richards/byron51.htm

http://cfcoklahoma.org/New_Site/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=0&func=view&catid=12&id=1490

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0904/S00076.htm

Yes it is all in my head. I am not labled with schizophrenia though. Just ADHD and dyslexia. Neither of those make me in any way susceptible to delusions. But don't believe it if it makes you feel a bit safer. I suppose if you are male you are not the least bit at risk anyway. Shall i continue? Because, i have no problem doing so.

http://postpartum.net/mothers-act/

http://www.cchr.org/mothers_act.html
"there is absolutely no language in the Mothers Act that will ensure mothers being "screened" for postpartum depression are granted the most fundamental right of "informed consent," meaning, per the legal definition, they are warned about all the risks of the proposed treatments and all the alternatives." (see above link.)

http://dailykenoshan.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7505&Itemid=107

http://www.naturalnews.com/024254.html

I could still keep going. But i think i have made my point. But you can still disbelieve it all you like. Then, you can click your heels 3 times repeating "there is no place like home." And maybe your ruby slippers will actually send you back home to kansas. Who can say? But this lovely little law is not lovely at all.

Postpartum depression is a serious matter it needs a serious solution. One that is respectful of women's rights. One that is safe for infants and fetuses. One, that is as focused on the fathers as it is on the mothers so as it is not discriminatory in nature. One that fully educates everyone about every option and choice that they have. One that allows those sane enough of mind to want to do the right thing for everyone, to make what they believe is the best choice, and have that choice respected. And if you still want to think that it is all in my lovely little empty head. Go ahead. But when this screeming causes damage to your daughter and your family, i will dance around screaming i told you so because i am just that vapidly b*tchy.

Back to top Profile Email
Mandi
Joined May 05, 2008
Posts: 424

Other Topics
Posted:Apr 13, 2009 9:36:58 PM

Oh and for the record, it is page 120 first paragraph in my hardcover copy of the book Men. Just so no one interested has to actually do the work to find it.

Back to top Profile Email
Rosco P. Coltrane
Joined Jun 28, 2007
Posts: 47

Other Topics
Posted:Apr 17, 2009 2:44:50 PM

July 28th - 2008
The Mother's Act Is Dead...
The US Senate killed S 3297, the Coburn Cloture Bill, which contained the Mother’s Act Bill and 36 unrelated measures. Sixty votes were needed to close debate and bring the bill to a final vote. It received only 52 votes — there were 40 votes against.....

Not sure how accurate your numbers are on the percentage of violent acts caused by men. I really don't trust data from 1983. I'm thinking that "Huey Lewis and the News" recorded their first album around this date. Plus, prisons are filled with women too...

Take care

Back to top Profile Email
Mandi
Joined May 05, 2008
Posts: 424

Other Topics
Posted:Apr 17, 2009 8:18:03 PM

All that you say *WAS* true. Now they have renamed the bill and have re-asserted it under the name of a mother who killed herself not long after reproducing. It is back up for consideration as the (woman's first and last name can't recall what it was though) mother's act. And in this incarnation it is still sickeningly still alive and kicking and worded as ambiguously as ever and leaves far too much room for abuses for it to be permitted to go forward. And in this new incarnation support is needed to defeat it *AGAIN.* It's like a horror movie, where the monster gets killed and then comes back to go after the hero of the film one last time before it finally dies, and even then how truly dead it is remains questionable....

You make a good point. My statistics are old. But it is at the present the only information i had and at one time it was true. However, it seems likely still that the vast majority of violent acts are committed by men.

Madoff, didn't do anything violent he is still a rat b*asterd though, and still in jail where he belongs. May he never see the light of day again. Martha Stewart went to jail, for non violence. There are plenty of non violent crimes to go to jail for in the USA. Some of them even carry a large number of years for a crime that actually didn't even physically hurt anyone and was in no way violent. So the argument of plenty of women in jail too, is accurate but compared to the number of men, well.... I am not sure what the statistic is but i am sure it is seriously lower than that of men behind bars. But this isn't about male bashing (non violently ofcourse) I was trying to explain that hormones of men and women are equally as problematic. In the sense that, male hormones go nuts at a certain point too and no one is propposing a father's act to check on them to cut down on abused children when it is fact due to genetics and the male brain the males are highly more predisposed genetically to be violent than women are. So wouldn't it then make more sense to have a Father's Act rather than a mother's act? That is if an act must be passed at all? Why protect kids from the far less likely threat while leaving the common threat alone and waiting to get them unchecked? The point was that doesn't make sense.

As for when my data comes from on the numbers, i was 3 when it was documented. So i honestly could walk talk and inform the world that everything was mine stamp my foot say no suck my thumb and look cute while hugging my teddy bear and taking afternoon naps, i was hardly around checking on the validity of the collected data and as i saw the data in the book i thought it was convenient. I should try to dig up some more recent numbers.

Back to top Profile Email
Mandi
Joined May 05, 2008
Posts: 424

Other Topics
Posted:Apr 17, 2009 8:57:22 PM

Ahhh here! This should be more recent. on the statistics and the likelyhood of men being violent towards children when compared to the likelyhood of women.

http://social.jrank.org/pages/1253/Violent-Crime-Gender-Differences-in-Violent-Crime-Offenders.html
"The graph presents homicide offender rates for men and women. Rates charted are the number of homicide offenders, by gender and year, for every 100,000 people in the population. Men murder on average 8 times for every murder perpetrated by a woman. The homicide rate "gender gap" hasn't closed over the years. In fact it has increased, and this despite a decline in number of homicides. In 1976 the ratio of male murderers to female was 5 to 1. By 1999 it was 9 to1 and at its peak, in 1995, it reached a surprisingly high 11 to 1 ratio." From above site. Is that sufficiently modern?

women do commit violent acts at a substantially lower rate than their male counterparts, once for every 7.15 times that a man commits a violent act. (also from above site.)

Ahhh And here it is on child abuse....

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/statistics.html

http://center.americanvalues.org/?p=70

This says that women are *ALMOST* twice as likely to commit violence against children. The fact is, women are also primary care givers in a position of power to abuse or not abuse about 80% of the time in the usa. So for men to be a bit more than half as likely as women to commit violence against the children they are primary care givers of in roughly 20% of the time that they are the primary care giver in the position of power to either be abusers or non abusers. I gotta ask, who is the greater threat? My vote has to go to men. Otherwise, men would be making up far less of a percentage given the situation ratio where they are primary care givers 20% when compared to 80%.

Which brings us back to the question, why is this bill directed at women rather than men?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2230902/posts

And there you have it.

Back to top Profile Email
Rosco P. Coltrane
Joined Jun 28, 2007
Posts: 47

Other Topics
Posted:Apr 20, 2009 3:06:29 PM

Your first set of data does support that men commit more violent acts, but the data also indicates that men overwhelming commit violent acts against other men.

Your 80/20 caregiver debate on child abuse seems more like faulty reasoning to me...It sounds like this "mother's act" (which will never pass)might have been created because women are typically the primary caregiver. Being the primary caregiver, they might have more of an opportunity to be abusive (of course, men can be abusive). Also, given the high percentage of single parent families, I wonder how much abuse goes unrecognized and unreported. Due to the link between stressors and abuse, it might be more benefical to target lower SES parents.

I seriously doubt this bill is going to pass.

Back to top Profile Email
Mandi
Joined May 05, 2008
Posts: 424

Other Topics
Posted:Apr 24, 2009 12:02:46 PM

I seriously doubt this bill is going to pass.

Being a pagan witch raised by budhist and a part time atheist, what i am about to say in response to that last line in your post astounds even me....

Let us bow our heads and pray.

Back to top Profile Email