UPDATES
March 2nd report.
HF 169, Authors: Slawik; Bly; Peterson, S.; Johnson; Moe; Slocum;
Abeler; Ruud; Benson; Welti; Ward; Hortman; Bunn.
HF 169 passed the E-12 Education Policy committee, and it was referred to
the
Early Childhood Learning Finance
Division.
Since our last
update, author Rep. Slawik has decided NOT to remove the infant
mental health language and does not wish to consider doing so until
conference committee. The bill was heard on Thursday, March 1st, at
4:00 p.m. in the Early Learning Finance Division during the blizzard when
there were no members of the public to testify for or against either bill
on the agenda. The bill was laid over for possible inclusion in the
omnibus early childhood finance bill. Please ask Rep. Slawik to remove at
least the word "behavioral" from the bill as Senator Bonoff
did. (See below.)
The Senate version, SF 92, was heard Monday, February 19, in the
Senate Education Committee. The chief author,
Senator Terri Bonoff, amended out the word "behavioral," so
the Senate version no longer has the overt reference to infant mental
health from the federal program, as discussed
in our alert.
She is to be thanked. It was referred to the Senate
State and Local Government Operations and Oversight Committee.
February 25th
Report.
HF 169: For EdWatch testimony in the House
E-12 Education Policy Committee on February 13th, you may
listen to the streaming audio or
download MP3. HF 169 passed the E-12 Education Policy committee, and
it was referred to the
Early Childhood Learning Finance
Division. That hearing is scheduled for Thursday, March
1st, at 4:00 p.m. in Room 200 of the State Office Building. The
offending language on infant mental health was NOT removed.
The Senate version, SF 92, was heard Monday, February 19, in the
Senate Education Committee. The chief author,
Senator Terri Bonoff, amended out the word "behavioral," so
the Senate version no longer has the overt reference to infant mental
health from the federal program, as discussed
in our alert.
She is to be thanked.
Senator David
Hann expressed concern about implementing a coordinated government
system for early childhood programs.
Senator Gen
Olson also expressed concerns about how early childhood programs can
undermine parental authority, and we may see some genuine improvement in
this bill. Stay tuned. It was referred to the Senate
State and Local Government Operations and Oversight Committee.
February 13, 2007
ALERT: Infant Mental
Screening Comes to the Legislature
CALL author, E-12 Committee Chairman and your legislator
to oppose Infant Mental Screening.
See listings at the bottom of this
page.
The
EdWatch alert began with these words:
- "The above shocking graphic is from a
federally funded coalition of academic institutions centered at UCLA
promoting early childhood mental health. It should remove any remaining
shred of doubt that the federal government is moving to implement a
universal system of mental health screening, intervention, and
monitoring, beginning with our very youngest children. This program is
called the State Early Childhood Comprehensive System (SECCS),
administered by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) and the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF). The paper containing the
graphic is all about infant mental health, as well as the
integration of mental health into early childhood programs."
Plans
for infant mental screening have been part of a
broad public-private plan, called,
"
Road Map for Mental Health System Reform" published by the
Citizens' League. On page 165, the "Road Map" states:
- MECCSS is a federally-funded grant project to coordinate and
integrate early childhood screening systems to assure that all
children ages birth to five are screened early and continuously for the
presence of health, socioemotional or developmental
needs." (Emphasis added). ["socioemotional" is
used interchangeably for "mental health."]
All
the elements of the federal SECCS system are included in HF 169, authored
by
Rep. Nora
Slawik (DFL-Maplewood).
The
five core components of the SECCS program are: Access to Health Care and
Medical Homes, Social-Emotional Development and Mental Health, Early Care
and Education Services, Parenting Education,and Family Support Services.
Clearly "behavioral health" is the new term for
socioemotional or mental health. It requires screening and treatment.
The SECCS program is described this way in the federal "Mental
Health Action Plan":
- "State Maternal and Child Health Early Childhood Comprehensive
Systems Grants will bring in other Federal partners to plan for and
develop statewide systems of care to support the healthy social and
emotional development of children. In particular, grants support the
development of a State plan that addresses access to health insurance and
regular primary care services, mental health and
social-emotional development interventions, early
child care and educational supports, and parent education and family
support."
Notice that screening is the very first service
listed in the graphic to promote infant mental health under
universal/preventive services. The number one policy
recommendation in this document is to "Integrate Infant Mental
Health into all child and family service systems."
Our concerns about socioemotional/mental health
or "behavioral health":
1) Lack of science behind screening
and diagnostic criteria - Even the National Center for Infant
and Early Childhood Health Policy, the organization that is being funded
by SECCS to research and implement this program admitted in a 2005 paper
that:
- Diagnostic classifications for infancy are still being developed and
validated
- Broad parameters for determining socioemotional outcomes are
not clearly defined
2) Lack of evidence of
effectiveness - Dr. Benedetto Vitiello, chief of child and
adolescent psychiatry at the National Institutes of Mental Health admit
respectively:
- Little research has been conducted to study the effectiveness of
psychosocial interventions in young children, and the long-term
risk-benefit ratio of psychosocial and pharmacologic treatments is
basically unknown.
- Lack of longitudinal outcome studies
- There is neither a systematic data base, clear criteria for
[medication] treatment or dosage recommendations that have been
identified or standardized for pediatric use (Greenhill et al. 2003).
3) Over-identification of poor and
minorities for emotional disorders and mental retardation -
The President's Commission on Special Education and the National Academy
of Sciences have both pointed this out. It seems a great and
unnecessary burden on already overburdened special education resources to
begin screening and labeling children at such a young age when neither
the criteria nor the resources are scientifically valid.
4) Overuse of psychiatric medication in young
children - Vanderbilt University released a study in 2006
showing that 2.5 million children in the US are on antipsychotic
medications, the youngest being 18 months old. A review of reported
side effects of these very potent drugs found 45 deaths in children, the
youngest being 4 years old. The FDA admitted that number probably
represented only 1-10% of the total. Other research has shown that poor
children on Medicaid are more likely to receive these stronger, more
portent drugs than are children with private insurance.
5) Autism is the biggest reason
for the psychiatric screening of young children and nothing is
being done to deal with the major cause of autism that is due to the
needless exposure of infants to the potent neurotoxin mercury via
childhood vaccines. The legislature has wisely banned mercury
thermometers and drastically reduced mercury emissions by industry.
It is a major environmental hazard that causes schools to be shut down as
happened just recently. Why this state then still allows mercury to
still be injected into the developing minds and bodies of innocent
infants is completely beyond comprehension.
6) Minnesota will be taking on more federal mandates and federal
control for an issue that is on very shaky medical, scientific and
academic ground.
7) Finally, even if one would be nave enough to think that infant or
early childhood psychiatric screening or intervention would have any
medical or scientific merit, it is not the place of government to
be involved in the thoughts or emotions of its citizens, especially ones
this young. Hundreds of years of history and tradition and settled
case law put the raising, education, and medical care of children,
especially young children, rightly in the hands of parents and
families. Government has no authority or even compelling interest
in setting up a system of psychiatric screening and intervention for all
children just because there are problems in some.
CALL OR E-MAIL E-12 COMMITTEE MEMBERS NOW.
URGE THEM TO: "Remove lines 2.26 and
2.29 from HF 169."
Your own legislator:
Find Your House Member and Contact Information
Here.
Beware that two more bills are
coming up in the House E-12 Committee on Thursday, February 15th, that
overtly put infant mental screening and intervention into law. They are:
HF 585
(
Bly) and HF 26
(
Thissen).
Stay tuned for more information on those bills, and when you have
discussed HF 169 with your legislator, ask them to oppose these bills, as
well.
EdAction is a 501(c)4. We promote the
work of EdWatch. To ensure our work
continues, contribute
here. To subscribe or
unsubscribe, mail to:
edaction@lakes.com with "subscribe" or
"unsubscribe" in the SUBJECT of the message.
![[]](http://edaction.org/images/EdWatchAction.jpg)
