Kate CA Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 (edited) I thought this was worth posting. I am not going to debate/discuss it, just offering it as information. Thanks! ********************************* [Removing link to possibly inflammatory website...] Adding link to direct bill. This bill has *possible* disturbing ramifications. You might want to make yourself aware of it. Edited April 25, 2009 by Kate CA Removal of link/addition of link/Change of Post Title Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00020: This is a link from the US Govt acceptable link under board rules. I made a link yesterday that was not from a govt website and I am so glad someone pointed it out to me as it was not intentional. Great issue to discuss screening for postpartum depression etc I need to read and think on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 (edited) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3529.IS: more info ib recent incarnations of the bill http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.324: Edited April 23, 2009 by elizabeth additional govt link with text of bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate CA Posted April 23, 2009 Author Share Posted April 23, 2009 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3529.IS: more info ib recent incarnations of the billhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.324: The more information the better! Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KidsHappen Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Bump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravin Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Nothing I read in those bills says anything about mandated mental health testing of anybody. It appears to me that it is to provide grants for studying postpartum depression and psychosis, educating new mothers and families about these disorders, and improving screening methods in both inpatient and outpatient contexts. It also allows grants for the study of mental health following different end-of-pregnancy outcomes, including abortion and relinquishment of a child for adoption. Where's the problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate CA Posted April 24, 2009 Author Share Posted April 24, 2009 Where's the problem? They are giving permission to the "Director of the National Institute of Mental Health" (whoever that might be) to conduct "a nationally representative longitudinal study (during the period of fiscal years 2009-2018)". How is this study to happen - will all post-delivery moms be subject to something like this? Will they have a choice? That may not bother you, but it is certainly not the government's business if I have PPD. It also says: "Delivering or enhancing outpatient and home-based health and support services, including case management and comprehensive treatment services for individuals with or at risk for postpartum conditions, and delivering or enhancing support services for their families." Who decides the individuals with conditions and what is their version of "case management" or "comprehensive treatment services"? It is simply not the federal government's job to deal with PPD. This is a private issue and not the place for the federal government. Also in this bill is this gem: "The term ‘postpartum condition’ means postpartum depression or postpartum psychosis." Who decides if I am struggling with a little PPD or I am psychotic?? This is just wrong on so many levels. I do not disagree with the fact that PPD is a serious issue, but it isn't a federal issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Nothing I read in those bills says anything about mandated mental health testing of anybody. It appears to me that it is to provide grants for studying postpartum depression and psychosis, educating new mothers and families about these disorders, and improving screening methods in both inpatient and outpatient contexts. It also allows grants for the study of mental health following different end-of-pregnancy outcomes, including abortion and relinquishment of a child for adoption. Where's the problem? You're correct. The OP misrepresented the bill. Post-partum depression is a serous heath issue I'm glad it's being taken seriously. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 (edited) They are giving permission to the "Director of the National Institute of Mental Health" (whoever that might be) to conduct "a nationally representative longitudinal study (during the period of fiscal years 2009-2018)". How is this study to happen - will all post-delivery moms be subject to something like this? Will they have a choice? That may not bother you, but it is certainly not the government's business if I have PPD." You ALWAYS have a choice of whether or not to participate in a medical study. There are very strict guidelines about informed consent. A nationally representative study just means it should represent the demographics of the national population. There is no goal or need to include everyone. It also says: It is simply not the federal government's job to deal with PPD. This is a private issue and not the place for the federal government. They're just funding it. Also in this bill is this gem: "The term ‘postpartum condition’ means postpartum depression or postpartum psychosis." Who decides if I am struggling with a little PPD or I am psychotic?? This is just wrong on so many levels. Your doctor makes that decision. . I do not disagree with the fact that PPD is a serious issue, but it isn't a federal issue. Edited April 25, 2009 by Perry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate CA Posted April 24, 2009 Author Share Posted April 24, 2009 (edited) You're correct. The OP misrepresented the bill. Post-partum depression is a serous heath issue I'm glad it's being taken seriously. Bill I didn't misrepresent anything. I posted the link to the direct bill and I quoted from the direct bill. There are serious things that could result from a bill like this. There is nothing in this bill that products *US* from government intrusion. You may like it, but I certainly don't have to. PPD *is* very serious, but it is not the federal government's place to be dealing with it. Edited April 24, 2009 by Kate CA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 (edited) I didn't misrepresent anything. I posted the link to the direct bill and I quoted from the direct bill. There are serious things that could result from a bill like this. There is nothing in this bill that products *US* from government intrusion. You may like it, but I certainly don't have to. PPD *is* very serious, but it is not the federal government's place to be dealing with it. I would respectfully disagree with your contention that promoting good health (including mental health) is not a role for the Federal government. If you read our Constitution the opening line includes among the reasons our government was created is to "promote the general welfare." This certainly includes doing our best to help mothers who struggle with the very real problem of post-partum depression. It's not wrong, it's not scary, it is simply the right thing to do. Bill Edited April 25, 2009 by Spy Car Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate CA Posted April 24, 2009 Author Share Posted April 24, 2009 I would respectfully disagree with your contention that promoting good health (including mental health) is not a role for the Federal government. If you read out Constitution the opening line includes among the reasons our government was created is to "promote the general welfare." This certainly includes doing our best to help mothers who struggle with the very real problem of post-partum depression. It's not wrong, it's not scary, it is simply the right thing to do. Bill We can agree to disagree on the Constitutionality of such a bill or whether it is the "right thing to do." There are many ways laws are interpreted by different people reading them. I have concerns about this law and how it will be interpreted towards PP mothers. In my opinion, it is much too vague in its implementation. You are certainly free to disagree with me, but I don't appreciate you saying I misrepresented it when I quoted the bill directly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 We can agree to disagree on the Constitutionality of such a bill or whether it is the "right thing to do." There are many ways laws are interpreted by different people reading them. I have concerns about this law and how it will be interpreted towards PP mothers. In my opinion, it is much too vague in its implementation. You are certainly free to disagree with me, but I don't appreciate you saying I misrepresented it when I quoted the bill directly. Calling a authorization to conduct and finance a study on post-partum depression a "mandated mental heath test" strains credulity. Your title give a false impression. Your additional posts make it seem we need to fear some sort of government *intrusion*, when the fact is this bill seeks to fund the study post-partum depression, and to promote education on the issue. It's a good thing. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 We can agree to disagree on the Constitutionality of such a bill or whether it is the "right thing to do." There are many ways laws are interpreted by different people reading them. I have concerns about this law and how it will be interpreted towards PP mothers. In my opinion, it is much too vague in its implementation. You are certainly free to disagree with me, but I don't appreciate you saying I misrepresented it when I quoted the bill directly. I think you might be extrapolating too far in your interpretation. Yes, it will be interpreted differently by different people, but to a person in the legal profession, or related fields, the wording and parameters of the bill do not extend as far as you are indicating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepy Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Anyone interested in how their Congressman voted on this bill can check here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate CA Posted April 25, 2009 Author Share Posted April 25, 2009 Calling a authorization to conduct and finance a study on post-partum depression a "mandated mental heath test" strains credulity. Your title give a false impression. Your additional posts make it seem we need to fear some sort of government *intrusion*, when the fact is this bill seeks to fund the study post-partum depression, and to promote education on the issue. It's a good thing. Bill The title was left over from my original post which I realized after posting was linking not to the "right kind of site" according to the site rules. It was the title of the article I was quoting. I changed the link, but could not change the title. Mea culpa. The *post* however, was not anything but the bill. I obviously view the bill and its possible ramifications differently than you. Have a nice night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 The title was left over from my original post which I realized after posting was linking not to the "right kind of site" according to the site rules. It was the title of the article I was quoting. I changed the link, but could not change the title. Mea culpa. The *post* however, was not anything but the bill. I obviously view the bill and its possible ramifications differently than you. Have a nice night. Right, the inflammatory title remains from a post that started off linking to an inflammatory (your words) web-site and it misrepresents the bill. We do view the bill differently, as do the members of the House who passed the bill 391 to 8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie in Austin Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 The *post* however, was not anything but the bill. I thought the OP contained a quote from the Ron Paul website? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate CA Posted April 25, 2009 Author Share Posted April 25, 2009 I think you might be extrapolating too far in your interpretation. Yes, it will be interpreted differently by different people, but to a person in the legal profession, or related fields, the wording and parameters of the bill do not extend as far as you are indicating. I actually wasn't the one that extrapolated it. I just posted a few of the various concerns I feel about it here, but I learned about them from various places. I am not at all the only one concerned nor am I the only one seeing what I posted. What a bill "legally" allows and what how far some people take it are often wildly different things. I would be really really happy to be wrong. I am certainly not vested in being right in such things! :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate CA Posted April 25, 2009 Author Share Posted April 25, 2009 I thought the OP contained a quote from the Ron Paul website? It was to what I thought was a RP site originally. Ron Paul is someone I trust and I don't find him inflammatory, but I later realized it was not an official RP site. There are others discussing the bill, but I thought it more prudent to link to the bill itself so I changed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate CA Posted April 25, 2009 Author Share Posted April 25, 2009 Right, the inflammatory title remains from a post that started off linking to an inflammatory (your words) web-site and it misrepresents the bill. We do view the bill differently, as do the members of the House who passed the bill 391 to 8. If you really want to understand what happened then you can read what I wrote to Julie below. I live in a country where we are free to disagree with each other and are free to disagree with the congressional voting. I do. Enjoy your freedom to disagree with me and enjoy your freedom to dislike the way I posted and the "inflammatory" post title. I am kind of amazed that you seem to be so bent on being angry or upset about what I posted. It really doesn't matter to me, Bill. I did wish you a nice evening and I meant it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 If you really want to understand what happened then you can read what I wrote to Julie below. I live in a country where we are free to disagree with each other and are free to disagree with the congressional voting. I do. Enjoy your freedom to disagree with me and enjoy your freedom to dislike the way I posted and the "inflammatory" post title. I am kind of amazed that you seem to be so bent on being angry or upset about what I posted. It really doesn't matter to me, Bill. I did wish you a nice evening and I meant it. Kate, I'm neither angry nor upset. And I will happily enjoy my freedom to refute misrepresentations of important legislation. This bill advances women's healthcare and I hope it passes the Senate, as I'm sure it will. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 (edited) This bill advances women's healthcare and I hope it passes the Senate, as I'm sure it will. Bill I would say it also advances children's healthcare. You know the saying "If momma isn't happy...?" It is very seriously true in the face of post-partum disorders. I see this as a win-win for women and their children (and spouses, too I suppose!) :001_smile: I would hope that this research may lead to some solutions and resources for helping mothers in need of mental health services. I know I am very grateful for the follow-up care I received after my son was born, which included discussions on my mental state. I was not aware of PPD, nor its symptoms or ramifications. I am glad that I had a care-provider with access to resources to help me when I needed it. Edited April 25, 2009 by Audrey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 I thought this was worth posting. I am not going to debate/discuss it, just offering it as information. Thanks! ********************************* [Removing link to possibly inflammatory website...] Adding link to direct bill. This bill has *possible* disturbing ramifications. You might want to make yourself aware of it. I agree that the doors this could open could be unsettling. I can very easily see the possible...... issues this could bring to the front. As long as it remains optional, though, I guess we just have to deal with it. Sometimes it seems like we're headed to heck in a handbasket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.