Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So What Exactly Are The Mandatory Mental Screenings For?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-24-04 10:02 AM
Original message
So What Exactly Are The Mandatory Mental Screenings For?
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41606

And what if someone "fails"? Are they sent off to a reprogramming camp? Drugged? What's the cut-off age limit? When will this extend to become a requirement for civil-service employees, or private-sector employees? Will failng the screeing be a BLOT on your PERMANENT RECORD that follows you around for the rest of your life?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-24-04 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. Drugged, i bet. A giveaway to big pharma.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaLynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-24-04 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
2. From what I know ...
Edited on Wed Nov-24-04 10:08 AM by LisaLynne
they will be prescribed drugs. That's basically what is done with everyone lately. It's good for the pharmaceutical companies and good for school systems that don't want to deal with "troubled" children -- and what they mean by "troubled" is any kid who doesn't immediately fall into line. They want to turn everybody into doped up robot sheep ... er, even moreso than most people are now. :tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-24-04 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
3. out on the streets
Edited on Wed Nov-24-04 10:24 AM by salin
first - goes on the record
second - all possible employers buy the records and refuse ever to hire you
third - all institutions and social programs are cut - except the govt subsidy to big pharma for drug treatment

so the rest of you life you pop pills and live out on the street.

:shrug:

I really have no idea.. but somewhere it has to be a boon for bushcronies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-24-04 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Could make insurance a problem for many too.
Early in bush* malAdministration, there was a short cycle news story about DOD looking for ways to administer 'calming' drugs to mass urban populations 'to make it easier for military to occupy areas'. Think about THAT for a moment.

Any of you youngster ever see THX1138?

First result of the screening: $$ to the pharm industry. Payoff for what? I fear our worst imaginings not bad enough there.

Second result: "See, they CARE about us!" for more sheep mind-fucks.

Third result: Marginalizing people who insist on liberty and free will.

Fourth result: Brave New World at the Animal Farm home of The Handmaid's Tale.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rkc3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-24-04 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
4. Another one from Hitler's playbook.
Edited on Wed Nov-24-04 10:13 AM by rkc3
The big question is - would shrubby pass the test?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-24-04 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Der Fuhrer and Party Members are automatically above suspicion
What are you, one of those Liberal Traitors?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rkc3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-24-04 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Nope, just a blood sucking, baby killer - Liberal Traitors are too radical
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Not_Giving_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-24-04 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
5. I have a child with mental health issues
And I just can't believe this. How can they do anything to a minor without the consent of the parents?? Are they going to screen them at school? Some schools already try to force parents to medicate their kids by saying that if the child is not on medication, he/she cannot come to school. A lot of these meds have side effects that are worse than the problems they are put out there to treat. Does this mean that they can medicate a kid without parental consent??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Batsen D Belfry Donating Member (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-24-04 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
9. So if someone's vagina is involved...
parental consent is required, but if their brain is at issue, parental consent is not.

More proof that the sex organs drive the thinking of the Republican party.

Dr Batsen D Belfry

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DustMolecule Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-24-04 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
10. Another story about this.....
...not sure how Newsmax is considered as a source, but here's the article:

<snip>

Congress Funds Psychological Tests for Kids
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Nov. 23, 2004

One of the nation's leading medical groups, the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS), decried a move by the U.S. Senate to join with the House in funding a federal program AAPS says will lead to mandatory psychological testing of every child in America – without the consent of parents.

When the Senate considered an omnibus appropriations bill last week that included funding for grants to implement universal mental health screening for almost 60 million children, pregnant women and adults through schools and pre-schools, it approved $20 million of the $44 million sought, Kathryn Serkes, public affairs counsel for AAPS, told NewsMax.

This $20 million matches a like amount already approved by the House, Serkes advised.

While the funding cut of some $24 million was a little good news, suggested Serkes, whose organization has zealously opposed the the measure, she said the organization was most worried about the failure of Congress to include “parental consent” language sought by the AAPS.

<snip>

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/22/215244.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 20th 2024, 01:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC