March 5, 2009

I believe "The Mothers Act" H.R. 20 now called S.1375 violates our Constitutional Rights, bringing to life the "Thought Police” we used to joke about years ago.

Our Constitution and our 4th Amendment states;

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 

This right is not an "entitlement." This right is inalienable, meaning it cannot be violated by anyone for any reason. It should not be violated by freelance goons, or even the government: not even the industry of Psychiatry. It cannot be, in good conscience, violated for any reason: not for "the public good," or to feed other people.

A right is not an entitlement. A right means being left alone, unless freely choosing otherwise.

In Katz v. United States, Justice Harlan issued a concurring opinion articulating the two-part test later adopted by the Court as the definition of a search for Fourth Amendment purposes: (1) governmental action must contravene an individual's actual, subjective expectation of privacy; (2) and that expectation of privacy must be reasonable, in the sense that society in general would recognize it as such.

In order to meet the first part of the test, the person from whom the information was obtained must demonstrate they, in fact, had an actual, subjective expectation the evidence obtained would not be available to the public. In other words, the person asserting a search was conducted must show they kept the evidence in a manner designed to ensure its privacy. (In ones own mind meets this requirement.) 

The second part of the test is analyzed objectively: would society at large deem a person's expectation of privacy to be reasonable? If it is plain a person did not keep the evidence at issue in a private place, then no search is required to uncover the evidence. (A person's Mind would meet this requirement and the Government officials doing a search of one's mind would violate this amendment.) 

This Bill goes beyond the Constitutional rights given to Government.

The term "Thought Police", by extension, has come to refer to real or perceived enforcement of ideological correctness, or preemptive policing where a person is apprehended in anticipation of the possibility they may commit a crime, in any modern or historical contexts. A reasonable person would find this objectionable in its fullest sense. 

Further more; (Below statements, courtesy of Citizens Commission on Human Rights)

The bill does not address the fact that studies show that biological agents (antidepressants for example) cited in the bill and already prescribed to pregnant women can cause congenital heart birth defects where children have had to undergo open-heart surgeries to correct this.

There is no language in the bill that protects thousands of mothers being erroneously screened and drugged with antidepressants that medical studies show cause birth defects and withdrawal symptoms, devastating families and driving up health care costs to treat these iatrogenic-caused conditions.

There is no language about the diverse medical opinion and studies about "post partum depression" and whether it exists as a mental disability or as a physical condition that can be treated by normal medical or alternative means.

While the bill promotes more research into the condition, it doesn't provide safeguards about this research and the effects of biological agents on the fetus with studies suggesting that antidepressants may exert an impact on developmental processes of the embryo, and cause higher rates of premature delivery, low birth weight, admissions to intensive care units, and poor neonatal adaptation, including respiratory and feeding difficulties in infants.

The bill seeks more appropriations to the National Institutes of Health to research postpartum depression but does not specify how the funds are to be used. For example, during the past 3 years, NIMH has already spent more than $10 million on 38 studies of PPD, yet the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine lists no grants on its website for such research.

The way in which the bill is currently worded could likely lead to thousands of suits as hundreds have already been filed concerning antidepressant use during pregnancy that has resulted in infants being born with a life-threatening lung disorder, PPHN and that between 10% and 20% of infants born with PPHN end up dying, even when they receive treatment.


William O Tower
President AFRA