II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1800 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental 

health screening program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 3, 2011 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or 

mandatory mental health screening program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Parental Consent Act 

5 of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds as follows: 

8 (1) The United States Preventive Services Task 

9 Force (USPSTF) issued findings and recommenda10 tions against screening for suicide that corroborate 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1800 IS

1 those of the Canadian Preventive Services Task 

2 Force, ‘‘USPSTF found no evidence that screening 

3 for suicide risk reduces suicide attempts or mor4 tality. There is limited evidence on the accuracy of 

5 screening tools to identify suicide risk in the primary 

6 care setting, including tools to identify those at high 

7 risk.’’. 

8 (2) The 1999 Surgeon General’s report on men9 tal health admitted the serious conflicts in the med10 ical literature regarding the definitions of mental 

11 health and mental illness when it said, ‘‘In other 

12 words, what it means to be mentally healthy is sub13 ject to many different interpretations that are rooted 

14 in value judgments that may vary across cultures. 

15 The challenge of defining mental health has stalled 

16 the development of programs to foster mental health 

17 (Secker, 1998). . . .’’. 

18 (3) A 2005 report by the National Center for 

19 Infant and Early Childhood Health Policy admitted, 

20 with respect to the psychiatric screening of children 

21 from birth to age 5, the following: ‘‘We have men22 tioned a number of the problems for the new field 

23 of IMH [Infant Mental Health] throughout this 

24 paper, and many of them complicate examining out25 comes.’’. Briefly, such problems include: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1800 IS

1 (A) Lack of baseline. 

2 (B) Lack of agreement about diagnosis. 

3 (C) Criteria for referrals or acceptance 

4 into services are not always well defined. 

5 (D) Lack of longitudinal outcome studies. 

6 (E) Appropriate assessment and treatment 

7 requires multiple informants involved with the 

8 young child: parents, clinicians, child care staff, 

9 preschool staff, medical personnel, and other 

10 service providers. 

11 (F) Broad parameters for determining 

12 socioemotional outcomes are not clearly defined, 

13 although much attention is now being given to 

14 school readiness. 

15 (4) Authors of the bible of psychiatric diag16 nosis, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, admit 

17 that the diagnostic criteria for mental illness are 

18 vague, saying, ‘‘DSM–IV criteria remain a con19 sensus without clear empirical data supporting the 

20 number of items required for the diagnosis. . . . 

21 Furthermore, the behavioral characteristics specified 

22 in DSM–IV, despite efforts to standardize them, re23 main subjective. . . .’’ (American Psychiatric Asso24 ciation Committee on the Diagnostic and Statistical 

25 Manual (DSM–IV 1994), pp. 1162–1163). 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•S 1800 IS

1 (5) Because of the subjectivity of psychiatric di2 agnosis, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label 

3 a person’s disagreement with the psychiatrist’s polit4 ical beliefs a mental disorder. 

5 (6) Efforts are underway to add a diagnosis of 

6 ‘‘extreme intolerance’’ to the Diagnostic and Statis7 tical Manual. Prisoners in the California State penal 

8 system judged to have this extreme intolerance 

9 based on race or sexual orientation are considered to 

10 be delusional and are being medicated with anti-psy11 chotic drugs (Washington Post 12/10/05). 

12 (7) At least one federally funded school violence 

13 prevention program has suggested that a child who 

14 shares his or her parent’s traditional values may be 

15 likely to instigate school violence. 

16 (8) Despite many statements in the popular 

17 press and by groups promoting the psychiatric label18 ing and medication of children, that ADD/ADHD is 

19 due to a chemical imbalance in the brain, the 1998 

20 National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference 

21 said, ‘‘. . . further research is necessary to firmly 

22 establish ADHD as a brain disorder. This is not 

23 unique to ADHD, but applies as well to most psy24 chiatric disorders, including disabling diseases such 

25 as schizophrenia. . . . Although an independent diVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:14 Nov 09, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1800.IS S1800

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
5 

•S 1800 IS

1 agnostic test for ADHD does not exist. . . . Finally, 

2 after years of clinical research and experience with 

3 ADHD, our knowledge about the cause or causes of 

4 ADHD remains speculative.’’. 

5 (9) There has been a precipitous increase in the 

6 prescription rates of psychiatric drugs in children: 

7 (A) The use of antipsychotic medication in 

8 children has increased nearly fivefold between 

9 1995 and 2002 with more than 2.5 million chil10 dren receiving these medications, the youngest 

11 being 18 months old (Vanderbilt University, 

12 2006). 

13 (B) More than 2.2 million children are re14 ceiving more than one psychotropic drug at one 

15 time with no scientific evidence of safety or ef16 fectiveness (Medco Health Solutions, 2006). 

17 (C) More money was spent on psychiatric 

18 drugs for children than on antibiotics or asthma 

19 medication in 2003 (Medco Trends, 2004). 

20 (10) A September 2004 Food and Drug Admin21 istration hearing found that more than two-thirds of 

22 studies of antidepressants given to depressed chil23 dren showed that they were no more effective than 

24 placebo, or sugar pills, and that only the positive 

25 trials were published by the pharmaceutical industry. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
6 

•S 1800 IS

1 The lack of effectiveness of antidepressants has been 

2 known by the Food and Drug Administration since 

3 at least 2000 when, according to the Food and Drug 

4 Administration Background Comments on Pediatric 

5 Depression, Robert Temple of the Food and Drug 

6 Administration Office of Drug Evaluation acknowl7 edged the ‘‘preponderance of negative studies of 

8 antidepressants in pediatric populations’’. The Sur9 geon General’s report said of stimulant medication 

10 like Ritalin, ‘‘However, psychostimulants do not ap11 pear to achieve long-term changes in outcomes such 

12 as peer relationships, social or academic skills, or 

13 school achievement.’’. 

14 (11) The Food and Drug Administration finally 

15 acknowledged by issuing its most severe Black Box 

16 Warnings in September 2004, that the newer 

17 antidepressants are related to suicidal thoughts and 

18 actions in children and that this data was hidden for 

19 years. A confirmatory review of that data published 

20 in 2006 by Columbia University’s department of 

21 psychiatry, which is also the originator of the 

22 TeenScreen instrument, found that ‘‘in children and 

23 adolescents (aged 6–18 years), antidepressant drug 

24 treatment was significantly associated with suicide 

25 attempts . . . and suicide deaths. . . .’’. The Food 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
7 

•S 1800 IS

1 and Drug Administration had over 2,000 reports of 

2 completed suicides from 1987 to 1995 for the drug 

3 Prozac alone, which by the agency’s own calculations 

4 represent but a fraction of the suicides. Prozac is 

5 the only such drug approved by the Food and Drug 

6 Administration for use in children. 

7 (12) Other possible side effects of psychiatric 

8 medication used in children include mania, violence, 

9 dependence, weight gain, and insomnia from the 

10 newer antidepressants; cardiac toxicity including le11 thal arrhythmias from the older antidepressants; 

12 growth suppression, psychosis, and violence from 

13 stimulants; and diabetes from the newer anti-psy14 chotic medications. 

15 (13) Parents are already being coerced to put 

16 their children on psychiatric medications and some 

17 children are dying because of it. Universal or man18 datory mental health screening and the accom19 panying treatments recommended by the New Free20 dom Commission on Mental Health will only in21 crease that problem. Across the country, Patricia 

22 Weathers, the Carroll Family, the Johnston Family, 

23 and the Salazar Family were all charged or threat24 ened with child abuse charges for refusing or taking 

25 their children off of psychiatric medications. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
8 

•S 1800 IS

1 (14) The United States Supreme Court in 

2 Pierce versus Society of Sisters (268 U.S. 510 

3 (1925)) held that parents have a right to direct the 

4 education and upbringing of their children. 

5 (15) Universal or mandatory mental health 

6 screening violates the right of parents to direct and 

7 control the upbringing of their children. 

8 (16) Federal funds should never be used to sup9 port programs that could lead to the increased over10 medication of children, the stigmatization of children 

11 and adults as mentally disturbed based on their po12 litical or other beliefs, or the violation of the liberty 

13 and privacy of Americans by subjecting them to 

14 invasive ‘‘mental health screening’’ (the results of 

15 which are placed in medical records which are avail16 able to government officials and special interests 

17 without the patient’s consent). 

18 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION AGAINST FEDERAL FUNDING OF UNI19 VERSAL OR MANDATORY MENTAL HEALTH 

20 SCREENING. 

21 (a) UNIVERSAL OR MANDATORY MENTAL HEALTH

22 SCREENING PROGRAM.—No Federal funds may be used 

23 to establish or implement any universal or mandatory 

24 mental health, psychiatric, or socioemotional screening 

25 program. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
9 

•S 1800 IS

1 (b) REFUSAL TO CONSENT AS BASIS OF A CHARGE

2 OF CHILD ABUSE OR EDUCATION NEGLECT.—No Federal 

3 education funds may be paid to any local educational 

4 agency or other instrument of government that uses the 

5 refusal of a parent or legal guardian to provide express, 

6 written, voluntary, informed consent to mental health 

7 screening for his or her child as the basis of a charge of 

8 child abuse, child neglect, medical neglect, or education 

9 neglect until the agency or instrument demonstrates that 

10 it is no longer using such refusal as a basis of such a 

11 charge. 

12 (c) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this Act, the term 

13 ‘‘universal or mandatory mental health, psychiatric, or 

14 socioemotional screening program’’— 

15 (1) means any mental health screening program 

16 in which a set of individuals (other than members of 

17 the Armed Forces or individuals serving a sentence 

18 resulting from conviction for a criminal offense) is 

19 automatically screened without regard to whether 

20 there was a prior indication of a need for mental 

21 health treatment; and 

22 (2) includes— 

23 (A) any program of State incentive grants 

24 for transformation to implement recommenda25 tions in the July 2003 report of the New FreeVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:14 Nov 09, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1800.IS S1800

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
10 

•S 1800 IS

1 dom Commission on Mental Health, the State 

2 Early Childhood Comprehensive System, grants 

3 for TeenScreen, and the Foundations for 

4 Learning Grants; and 

5 (B) any student mental health screening 

6 program that allows mental health screening of 

7 individuals under 18 years of age without the 

8 express, written, voluntary, informed consent of 

9 the parent or legal guardian of the individual 

10 involved. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS