I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 181 

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

health screening program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2005 

Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. FEENEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition 

to the Committees on Education and the Workforce and Ways and 

Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

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 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds as follows: 
2 

•HR 181 IH 

1 (1) The United States Preventive Services Task 

2 Force (USPSTF) issued findings and recommenda3 tion against screening for suicide that corroborate 

4 those of the Canadian Preventive Services Task 

5 Force. ‘‘USPSTF found no evidence that screening 

6 for suicide risk reduces suicide attempts or mor7 tality. There is limited evidence on the accuracy of 

8 screening tools to identify suicide risk in the primary 

9 care setting, including tools to identify those at high 

10 risk.’’. 

11 (2) The 1999 Surgeon General’s report on men12 tal health admitted the serious conflicts in the med13 ical literature regarding the definitions of mental 

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

15 words, what it means to be mentally healthy is sub16 ject to many different interpretations that are rooted 

17 in value judgments that may vary across cultures. 

18 The challenge of defining mental health has stalled 

19 the development of programs to foster mental health 

20 (Secker, 1998). . . .’’. 

21 (3) The Surgeon General’s report also says, 

22 ‘‘The diagnosis of mental disorders is often believed 

23 to be more difficult than diagnosis of somatic or 

24 general medical disorders since there is no definitive 
3 

•HR 181 IH 

1 laboratory test or abnormality in brain tissue that 

2 can identify the illness.’’. 

3 (4) Accurate mental health diagnosis of chil4 dren is difficult as admitted by the Surgeon Gen5 eral’s report that says, ‘‘The science is challenging 

6 because of the ongoing process of development. The 

7 normally developing child hardly stays the same long 

8 enough to make stable measurements. Adult criteria 

9 for illness can be difficult to apply to children and 

10 adolescents, when the signs and symptoms of mental 

11 disorders are often also the characteristics of normal 

12 development.’’. 

13 (5) Authors of the bible of psychiatric diag14 nosis, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, admit 

15 that the diagnostic criteria for mental illness are 

16 vague, saying, ‘‘DSM–IV criteria remain a con17 sensus without clear empirical data supporting the 

18 number of items required for the diagnosis. . . . Fur19 thermore, the behavioral characteristics specified in 

20 DSM–IV, despite efforts to standardize them, re21 main subjective. . . .’’ (American Psychiatric Asso22 ciation Committee on the Diagnostic and Statistical 

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

24 (6) Because of the subjectivity of psychiatric di25 agnosis, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label 
4 

•HR 181 IH 

1 a person’s disagreement with the psychiatrist’s polit2 ical beliefs a mental disorder. 

3 (7) At least one federally-funded school violence 

4 prevention program has suggested that a child who 

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

6 likely to instigate school violence. 

7 (8) Despite many statements in the popular 

8 press and by groups promoting the psychiatric label9 ing and medication of children, that ADD/ADHD is 

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

11 National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference 

12 said, ‘‘. . . further research is necessary to firmly es13 tablish ADHD as a brain disorder. This is not 

14 unique to ADHD, but applies as well to most psy15 chiatric disorders, including disabling diseases such 

16 as schizophrenia. . . . Although an independent diag17 nostic test for ADHD does not exist. . . . Finally, 

18 after years of clinical research and experience with 

19 ADHD, our knowledge about the cause or causes of 

20 ADHD remains speculative.’’. 

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

22 prescription rates of psychiatric drugs in children: 

23 (A) A 300-percent increase in psychotropic 

24 drug use in 2 to 4 year old children from 1991 
5 

•HR 181 IH 

1 to 1995 (Journal of the American Medical As2 sociation, 2000). 

3 (B) A 300-percent increase in psychotropic 

4 drug use in children from 1987 to 1996 (Ar5 chives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 

6 2003). 

7 (C) More money was spent on psychiatric 

8 drugs for children than on antibiotics or asthma 

9 medication in 2003 (Medco Trends, 2004). 

10 (10) A September 2004 Food and Drug Admin11 istration hearing found that more than two-thirds of 

12 studies of antidepressants given to depressed chil13 dren showed that they were no more effective than 

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

15 trials were published by the pharmaceutical industry. 

16 The lack of effectiveness of antidepressants has been 

17 known by the Food and Drug Administration since 

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

19 Administration Background Comments on Pediatric 

20 Depression, Robert Temple of the Food and Drug 

21 Administration Office of Drug Evaluation acknowl22 edged the ‘‘preponderance of negative studies of 

23 antidepressants in pediatric populations’’. The Sur24 geon General’s report said of stimulant medication 

25 like Ritalin, ‘‘However, psychostimulants do not ap-
6 

•HR 181 IH 

1 pear to achieve long-term changes in outcomes such 

2 as peer relationships, social or academic skills, or 

3 school achievement.’’. 

4 (11) The Food and Drug Administration finally 

5 acknowledged in September 2004, that the newer 

6 antidepressants are related to suicidal thoughts and 

7 actions in children and that this data was hidden for 

8 years. The Food and Drug Administration had over 

9 2000 reports of completed suicides from 1987 to 

10 1995 for the drug Prozac alone, which by the agen11 cy’s own calculations represent but a fraction of the 

12 suicides. Prozac is the only such drug approved by 

13 the Food and Drug Administration for use in chil14 dren. 

15 (12) Other possible side effects of psychiatric 

16 medication used in children include mania, violence, 

17 dependence, weight gain, and insomnia from the 

18 newer antidepressants; cardiac toxicity including le19 thal arrhythmias from the older antidepressants; 

20 growth suppression, psychosis, and violence from 

21 stimulants; and diabetes from the newer anti-psy22 chotic medications. 

23 (13) Parents are already being coerced to put 

24 their children on psychiatric medications and some 

25 children are dying because of it. Universal or man-
7 

•HR 181 IH 

1 datory mental health screening and the accom2 panying treatments recommended by the President’s 

3 New Freedom Commission on Mental Health will 

4 only increase that problem. Across the country, Pa5 tricia Weathers, the Carroll Family, the Johnston 

6 Family, and the Salazar Family were all charged or 

7 threatened with child abuse charges for refusing or 

8 taking their children off of psychiatric medications. 

9 (14) The United States Supreme Court in 

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

11 (1925)) held that parents have a right to direct the 

12 education and upbringing of their children. 

13 (15) Universal or mandatory mental health 

14 screening violates the right of parents to direct and 

15 control the upbringing of their children. 

16 (16) Federal funds should never be used to sup17 port programs that could lead to the increased over18 medication of children, the stigmatization of children 

19 and adults as mentally disturbed based on their po20 litical or other beliefs, or the violation of the liberty 

21 and privacy of Americans by subjecting them to 

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

23 which are placed in medical records which are avail24 able to government officials and special interests 

25 without the patient’s consent). 
8 

•HR 181 IH 

1 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION AGAINST FEDERAL FUNDING OF UNI2 VERSAL OR MANDATORY MENTAL HEALTH 

3 SCREENING. 

4 (a) UNIVERSAL OR MANDATORY MENTAL HEALTH

5 SCREENING PROGRAM.—No Federal funds may be used 

6 to establish or implement any universal or mandatory 

7 mental health screening program. 

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

9 OF CHILD ABUSE OR EDUCATION NEGLECT.—No Federal 

10 education funds may be paid to any local educational 

11 agency or other instrument of government that uses the 

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

13 written, voluntary, informed consent to mental health 

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

15 child abuse or education neglect until the agency or instru16 ment demonstrates that it is no longer using such refusal 

17 as a basis of a child abuse or education neglect charge. 

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

19 ‘‘universal or mandatory mental health screening pro20 gram’’— 

21 (1) means any mental health screening program 

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

23 the Armed Forces or individuals serving a sentence 

24 resulting from conviction for a criminal offense) is 

25 automatically screened without regard to whether 
9 

•HR 181 IH 

1 there was a prior indication of a need for mental 

2 health treatment; and 

3 (2) includes— 

4 (A) any program of State incentive grants 

5 for transformation to implement recommenda6 tions in the July 2003 report of the President’s 

7 New Freedom Commission on Mental Health; 

8 and 

9 (B) any student mental health screening 

10 program that allows mental health screening of 

11 individuals under 18 years of age without the 

12 express, written, voluntary, informed consent of 

13 the parent or legal guardian of the individual 

14 involved. 

Æ