Church, State and Trump

CHURCH AND STATE IN TRUMP'S AMERICA

The Constitution says Congress has no power to legislate restrictively about religion.  By linking religion with speech, communication ("the press"), assembly and redress, the First Amendment creates what the Supreme Court has come to refer to as "Expressive Association."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Religious organizations have come to rely on the powerful language of the First Amendment to assure their independence from political authority in America. 

The prohibition against Congress making any law prohibiting "free exercise" combined with our first Supreme Court's admonition that "the power to tax is the power to destroy" is the basis for the tax exemptions of churches. I wrote about this in 1998:

“Yeshua the Nazarite taught his followers to "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's". He was adroitly avoiding, as the incident in the Bible makes clear, expressing an opinion regarding the Roman Empire's taxes. Jesus continued, "...and render unto God the things which are God's". Ever since, the question of the State's authority and Religion's right has been of central concern in Western religious and legal philosophy. We have seen how this conflict has been resolved, at present, in America. The tax (and other laws) we have discussed are part of that resolution, for, as our first Supreme Court said, "the power to tax is the power to destroy," and Congress has made it the law that the government may never use this power to destroy the independence and capacity to act of American churches. This is the Law of the Land and should be defended by all freedom-loving and religiously oriented people.” [1]

There have been few attempts to restrict religious speech in US history and all but one, the infamous 1954 Johnson Amendment, have fallen away.  That clause, imposed by LBJ while still a member of Congress, attempts to prevent churches from engaging in political speech. That is old law unlikely to be fully enforceable.

Congress adopted the RFRA, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-141). In this enactment Congress determined that "governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification..." and that "laws 'neutral' toward religion may burden religious exercise..." Therefore Congress determined to protect the free exercise of religion as follows:

"Sect. 3. Free Exercise of Religion Protected. (a) In General. -- Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b). (b) Exception. -- Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person -- (1) is in the furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (c) Judicial Relief. -- A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government..."

Under that law the courts have allowed churches great leeway. Examples include sponsoring peyote rituals and even asserting exemptions from certain Obamacare insurance requirements.

Recently people have been more strongly asserting their right to have their religious beliefs accommodated in reference to government and employer vaccine mandates. I’ve written about that and helped develop a form Demand for Religious Accommodation. [2]   

This trend has been further strengthened by actions taken by the Attorney General and President Trump. [Let it be understood that I am not a particular fan of either, and consider their old-fashioned views regarding the health benefits of Hemp to be particularly egregious.]

Attorney General Jeff Sessions had this to say on October 6, 2017: [3]

“Religious liberty is not merely a right to personal religious beliefs or even to worship in a sacred place. It also encompasses religious observance and practice. Except in the narrowest circumstances, no one should be forced to choose between living out his or her faith and complying with the law.”

The Attorney General Continues, in Point 2 of his Opinion

“2. The free exercise of religion includes the right to act or abstain from action in accordance with one’s religious beliefs.

“The Free Exercise Clause protects not just the right to believe or the right to worship; it protects the right to perform or abstain from performing certain physical acts in accordance with one’s belief. Federal statues, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), supports that protection, broadly defining the exercise of religion to encompass all aspects of observance and practice, whether or not central to, or required by, by a particular religious faith.”  [4]

Last May President Trump signed an Executive Order essentially nullifying the Johnson Amendment, except for actually endorsing political candidates.

"The order, which Trump inked during a ceremony in the White House Rose Garden, directs the IRS not to take "adverse action" against churches and other tax-exempt religious organizations participating in political activity that stops short of an endorsement of a candidate for office. But pastors are already free to deliver political speeches, and regularly do. Churches and other tax-exempt organizations are restricted from endorsing or explicitly opposing political candidates under the 1954 Johnson Amendment, but the executive order Trump signed Thursday makes clear that those activities would still not be permitted." [5]

The wording of the Order states:

"Section 1. Policy. It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce Federal law's robust protections for religious freedom. The Founders envisioned a Nation in which religious voices and views were integral to a vibrant public square, and in which religious people and institutions were free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or retaliation by the Federal Government. For that reason, the United States Constitution enshrines and protects the fundamental right to religious liberty as Americans' first freedom. Federal law protects the freedom of Americans and their organizations to exercise religion and participate fully in civic life without undue interference by the Federal Government. The executive branch will honor and enforce those protections." [6]

Subsequently, in January 2018, the President created a "Conscience and Religious Freedom Division" in HHS:

"Social conservatives and religious liberty leaders have anticipated conscience and religious freedom protections to come out of HHS, and the work of the new division, which will fall under the purview of the Office of Civil Rights, will likely pave the way for health care workers to refuse specific types of care, like birth control or abortion, based on their religious or conscience objections." [7]

Bottom Line:  restrictions on religious involvement in public affairs, which IMHO always violated the absolutist language of the First Amendment (or as Justice Hugo Black was accused of saying, "No law means no law."), are becoming unenforceable.  Similarly, the right to assert conscientious objections to acting contrary to one's religious beliefs is becoming more respected by the civil authorities.

This may apply not only to conscientious objection to decorating wedding cakes, but also to submitting to vaccination or other demands of an ever more intrusive bureaucracy. These are highly significant developments.

Rev. Ralph Fucetola JD

www.LifeSpirit.org

[1] http://home.earthlink.net/~lifespirit23/minlaw.htm

[2] http://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2017/12/asserting-your-vaccine-right-to.html

[3] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-sessions-issues-guidance-federal-law-protections-religious-liberty

[4] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1001891/download

[5] https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/03/politics/trump-religious-liberty-executive-order/index.html

[6] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trumps-executive-order-on-religious-liberty-full-text/article/2622142

[7] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-announce-conscience-religious-freedom-division-hhs/story?id=52434480

Supreme Court Allows Redress Against Agency Intimidation

A Note to Health & Food Freedom & Justice advocates:

Today witnessed another Supreme Court unanimous victory for the individual's right to petition for redress when Federal agencies merely threaten enforcement action. The application of this case to various matters regarding health & food freedom & justice issues is very significant.

Standing to sue has been the key issue in cases such as the CoMeD mercury cases, the Ear Candlers Case and the "stop the shot" vax mandates cases.

Here is what the high Court said earlier today:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf

"The Sacketts, petitioners here, received a compliance order from the EPA, which stated that their residential lot contained navigable waters and that their construction project violated the Act. The Sacketts sought declarative and injunctive relief in the Federal District Court, contending that the compliance order was “arbitrary[and] capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5U. S. C. §706(2)(A), and that it deprived them of due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The District Court dismissed the claims for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the Clean Water Act precluded pre-enforcement judicial review of compliance orders and that such preclusion did not violate due process.

"Held: The Sacketts may bring a civil action under the APA to challenge the issuance of the EPA’s order. Pp. 4–10. ...

"The APA creates a “presumption favoring judicial review of administrative action.” Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S. 340, 349.

In this case, the circumstances are similar to what happened to the Ear Candlers, who all received "cease and desist" orders from FDA declaring that ear candles were "unapproved medical devices..." that had "no medical use" and could therefore never be approved. The District Court denied the Ear Candlers relief because the FDA only threatened enforcement but did not actually enforce (this, despite the FDA's own web site claiming it was enforcing and had forced companies to stop selling).

Here is what happened to the Sacketts:

"The Sacketts, who do not believe that their property is subject to the Act, asked the EPA for a hearing, but thatrequest was denied. They then brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Their complaint contended that the EPA’s issuance of the compliance order was “arbitrary [and] capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(A), and that it deprived them of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

"The District Court dismissed the claims for want of subject matter jurisdiction, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, 622 F. 3d 1139(2010). It concluded that the Act “preclude[s] pre-enforcement judicial review of compliance orders,” id., at 1144, and that such preclusion does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee, id., at 1147. ...

"We conclude that the compliance order in this case is final agency action for which there is no adequate remedy other than APA review, and that the Clean Water Act does not preclude that review. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

In recent years the FDA has responded to strong citizen "push back" by backing off some of its most extreme assertions of power. For example, when Natural Solutions Foundation led over a half million people to object to the FDA 'CAM' Guidance in 2007, that draconian regulation was never finalized. When we pushed hard against the Swine Flu Vax, the mandates collapsed. When we pushed against the recent New Dietary Ingredient Guidance, the comment period was extended. When the Raw Milk Freedom Riders publicly disobeyed the FDA interstate raw milk prohibition, the FDA backed off its claimed power to stop such shipments when for personal use, at least.

BUT, but, but... while backing off, the agency continues to act as though it had adopted these onerous rules. The Ear Candler Case shows that they are enforcing their illegal 'CAM' category (never adopted by Congress) anyway. The banning of a certain form of B-6 shows how they intend to enforce the NDI regulation.

Through intimidation and innuendo...

But now, with the Sackett case, it is clear the potential victims of agency-less-than-final-enforcement can have their day in court; they have standing to sue, to seek redress of grievances, when threatened by the consequences of enforcement even when the agency plays sly and tries to intimidate instead of directly enforce.

Ralph Fucetola JD
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.FreeWorldNetwork.org

Ron Paul on the Economic Crisis

Dr. Ron Paul, Member of Congress from Texas just sent this email about the economic crisis: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=616


---------------

Dear Friends:

The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary.

The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."

Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

"Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion."

"To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression."

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.

The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?

Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.

The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.

I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.

H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.

In liberty,
Ron Paul
www.CampaignforLiberty.com

FREEDOM AT THE TIPPING POINT

I wanted to share this important educational message from Dr. Laibow -

The key point: "The US Constitution does not mention health freedom. Our right to natural health care and our own decisions in our health path rests in other Constitutional freedoms. "

URGENT HEALTH FREEDOM ALERT
PLEASE FORWARD AS WIDELY AS YOU CAN

FREEDOM AT THE TIPPING POINT:
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CAN BE RESTORED IF YOU ACT NOW

Action Step: Go to

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=19684

to tell Congress that secret tribunals, torture and the power to hold people forever without charges or legal representation are not the America you want to live in, and certainly not the America the Constitution gives us. Urge Congress to support the Restoration of Habeas Corpus Act of 2007, S. 185 and the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007, HR 3835.

The US Constitution does not mention health freedom. Our right to natural health care and our own decisions in our health path rests in other Constitutional freedoms. Tragically, those freedoms have been eroded by the White House and by a Congress which has, all too frequently, forgotten its Oath of Office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. S. 185, if passed, will restore your right of Habeas Corpus and cancel the secret Military Commissions recently put in place which can try people in secret - secrecy so great, in fact, that the charges facing you - if any - and the evidence against you -if any - are secret from you. If S. 185 and/or HR 3835 are passed, people could no longer be held indefinitely with secret charges leveled against them (or no charges at all), secret evidence (or no evidence at all), no legal representation and no right to tell anyone where they are.

HR. 3835, the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007, introduced by Ron Paul (R-TX) goes even further and restores Habeas Corpus, cancels these secret military tribunals, forbids torture, kidnapping, rendition of people to foreign countries for torture and detention, protects journalists who are doing their jobs from charges of espionage and, in general, restores many of the basic Constitutional rights which have been ripped away from us by legislation, Signing Statements, Executive Orders and Homeland Security Directives.

These freedoms must be in place or the very concept of health freedoms becomes meaningless. I urge you, if health freedom is important to you, to take action immediately AND make sure that you send this email Health Freedom Alert to every person on your list and urge them to do the same.

A Quick and Heart-Felt Thank You

Health Freedom information follows this section but I wanted to thank the folks who are helping us keep your freedoms alive.

If you are among the Natural Solutions Foundation supporters who responded to my request for financial support, especially recurring donations

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189

and tax deductible donations to help fund the DVD

https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/healthfreedomusa/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=2835
now in progress, "Murder by the Numbers: the Codex Agenda", you have my sincere and genuine thanks. We still have hundreds of thousands of people, however, who have not yet stepped up to the plate. Tax deductible donations to the Foundation can be as little as $10 per month (more is very welcome, of course) while donations to fund the DVD in amounts of $100 or more will be acknowledged in the film itself.

This IS your battle: your health (and other) freedoms are at risk. Please take a moment and set up your recurring donation right now. We are here to safeguard those freedoms, but we need your on-going support.

Health Freedom At Risk:
Compulsory Drugging of Children I

Action Step: Go to http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=18970 t o urge Congress to support the Child Medication Safety Act, S. 891 to protect kids and their parents from school-driven health fascism.

EPIDEMIC OF FORCED DRUGGING STRIKES!

Under the guise of "Public Health" and "Mental Health", our children are being exposed to highly profitable, but dangerous, and potentially lethal, medication against parents wishes. In this series we will take a look at a number the ways in which forced drugging of children is either already taking place or is in the works. Using deceptive and incorrect "information", unvalidated and unscientific "screening" tools created by the drug companies and the increasingly invasive police power of the state to over ride parental rights, children are exposed to iatrogenic -doctor induced- mis treatment, removal from their homes to dangerous and abusive foster care and the emotional trauma of these abuses. These violations of our health freedoms and of the future of our country -since we are damaging huge numbers of our young people - must stop. And it is up to us to stop it.

Vaccinations, with all their well-documented dangers, psychoactive medication, with its fearsome brain and behavioral damage, forced chemotherapy come to mind.

PHONY SCREENING, FANTASY DIAGNOSES, REAL DAMAGE

In this email we will talk about the phony "screening" of children and adolescents like "Teen Screen" is a huge industry and a major health hazard since they frequently result in unwarranted, knee jerk diagnoses of children and, in the vast majority of cases, in a prescription for dangerous psychiatric drugs.

Fact: Teen Screen has no scientific validity and is a marketing ploy to sell dangerous drugs which may cause irreversible harm to children and teen agers to a new market: healthy children.

Fact: Teen Screen has never been shown to reduce suicidality in children while anti depressants and anti psychotic drugs are well documented to increase the risk of suicidal thoughts, attempts and successful suicides. In fact, these drugs often carry "Black Box" warnings to alert consumers to the increased risk of suicidal thoughts and actions in people taking them.

Here is what PsychSearch.net has to say about Teen Screen: TeenScreen is a very controversial so-called "diagnostic psychiatric service", aka suicide survey; done on children who are then referred to psychiatric treatment. The evidence suggests that the objective of the psychiatrists who designed TeenScreen is to place children so selected on psychotropic drugs.

"It's just a way to put more people on prescription drugs," said Marcia Angell, a medical ethics lecturer at Harvard Medical School and author of "The Truth About Drug Companies". She said such programs will boost the sale of antidepressants even after the FDA in September ordered a "black box" label warning that the pills might spur suicidal thoughts or actions in minors. (The New York Post, December 5, 2004)

TeenScreen is based on the thoroughly discredited "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual".

How Teen Screen Works

TeenScreen lures kids as young as 9 years old into taking the suicide survey by offering them free movie passes, food coupons, "I completed TeenScreen" stress balls, pizza parties and candy bars - if they consent to the procedure.

One tactic TeenScreen officials use is to sell the child on the suicide survey first and after they have the child's agreement, they later contact parents.

TeenScreen Project Coordinator, Kathleen Cigich, was quoted as saying: "We found early on, though, that sending out letters directly to parents is prohibitively time consuming and gets a low response rate. We thought, why not go to students themselves and offer a $5 video store coupon to anyone who brings back a parental consent form within a two-day turnaround period. It works. Our response rate is extremely high."


Passive Consent: No Parents Need Respond

TeenScreen also utilizes a "passive consent form" which requires no written parental approval. The passive consent form is sent home to parents and if they DON'T return it TeenScreen considers that the parents approve. TeenScreen officials favor passive consent because they say it boost their chances of screening kids to 95% as opposed to the written parental consent technique. What if the child forgets to bring the consent form home? What happens if the parent is too busy to refuse in writing? They've consented in the eyes of TeenScreen personnel.

IMPLANTING IDEAS

Next, the child is given a paper and pencil test over about 10 minutes with highly suggestive and meaningless questions like :

Has there been a time when nothing was fun for you and you just weren't interested in anything?
Has there been a time when you felt you couldn't do anything well or that you weren't as good-looking or as smart as other people?
How often did your parents get annoyed or upset with you because of the way you were feeling or acting?
Have you often felt very nervous when you've had to do things in front of people?
Have you often worried a lot before you were going to play a sport or game or do some other activity?
Have you tried to kill yourself in the last year?
Are you still thinking of killing yourself?
Have you thought seriously about killing yourself?
Have you often thought about killing yourself??
Have you ever tried to kill yourself?
Normal children answering honestly will endorse at least one of the first 5 questions. That is enough to get them "diagnosed" with one supposed mental health disorder or another.

Check, Check, Check, Have We Got a Diagnosis for You!

The child then sees a mental health adviser and a check list is administered to confirm the "diagnosis" and earn the child a referral. Click (http://www.psychsearch.net/teenscreen_screening_information_form.pdf) to see the mental health check list used to assign a diagnosis. Next, it's off to a psychiatrist and then the real tragedy begins. Up until now, it was merely a matter of violating parental rights, persuading children they are ill when they may just be normal children, taking time away from legitimate school activities, inserting intrusive and potentially dangerous ideas into impressionable kids and damaging the self-image and ego of the child (perhaps permanently). Once a psychiatrist gets involved, however, things get very, very dangerous.

When Parental Judgement Becomes Medical Neglect

Many states in the US have given themselves the authority to compel parents to medicate their children even if they do not believe the child should be taking meds OR RISK LOSS OF PARENTAL CUSTODY. The child will be either medicated by the parents (often under Court order) or taken away from the family and placed in foster care. Children in foster care are, sadly, all too frequently abusively medicated, sexually and physically molested/abused and emotionally damaged, sometimes to horrifying degrees. I know. I was the Child Psychiatrist for the Westchester County Department dealing with children in foster care for about a decade and am well aware of the abysmal conditions children in other states experience as well.
I n some states, the drugging craze has gone so far that school personnel are permitted to refuse to allow children into school if they are not medicated with potent, and dangerous, psychiatric drugs.

Good Bills to Protect Kids from Bad Public Policy

Two bills now before Congress will prevent this kind of abuse and prevent the use of Federal funds for mental health screening such as Teen Screen. S. 891, the "Child Medication Safety Act" was introduced into the Senate by Senators Inhoff and Coburn on March 15, 2007. Here is the heart of the Act with the main phrases underlined:

SEC. 2. REQUIRED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.

(a) In General- As a condition of receiving funds under any program or activity administered by the Secretary of Education, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, each State shall develop and implement policies and procedures prohibiting school personnel from requiring a child to obtain a prescription for substances covered by section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)) or a psychotropic drug as a condition of attending school or receiving services.


(b) Rule of Construction- Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to create a Federal prohibition against teachers and other school personnel consulting or sharing classroom-based observations with parents or guardians regarding a student's academic performance or behavior in the classroom or school, or regarding the need for evaluation for special education or related services under section 612(a)(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(3)).

(c) Prohibition of Payment of Funds- No Federal education funds may be paid to any local educational agency or other instrument of government that uses the refusal of a parent or legal guardian to provide a substance covered by section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)) or a psychotropic drug for such individual's child of a charge of child abuse, child neglect, education neglect, or medical neglect until the agency or instrument demonstrates that it is no longer using such refusal as a basis of a child abuse, child neglect, education neglect, or medical neglect charge.

Let Your Congressman/woman Know You Support This Sensible Law

Constitutional Rights, Parental Rights, Civil Rights, Normal Childhood Developmental Phases and Stages and good old fashioned Common Sense make it clear that this bill is badly needed. Government funds should not fund medical fascism and Senators Inhoff and Coburn are to be commended for their willingness to defy the market needs of Big Pharma and support the parental rights and developmental stages of parents and children. Click to send a letter to Congress telling them that health freedom, not health fascism, is important to you.

Thanks for your activism!

Yours in health and freedom,

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation

SHARE!
Tell Your Friends About www.HealthFreedomUSA.org

ORGANIZE!
Join us in the fight to protect health freedom - www.globalhealthfreedom.org

SIGN CITIZEN'S PETITION - www.globalhealthfreedom.org
Ask the U.S. government to change its policy on Codex Alimentarius

CONTRIBUTE! - www.globalhealthfreedom.org
Make a contribution and help raise funds for the health freedom fight

VOTE!
Register to vote in the US

EDUCATE CONGRESS - SUPPORT the Restoration of Habeas Corpus Act of 2007, S. 185 and the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007, HR 3835 - http://tinyurl.com/23n3fr