Industries Get Quiet Protection From Lawsuits
Federal agencies are using arcane regulations and legal opinions to shield automakers and others from challenges by consumers and states.
By Myron Levin and Alan C. Miller, Times Staff Writers

LINK

WASHINGTON  Near sunrise on a summer morning in 2001, Patrick Parker of Childress, Texas, swerved to avoid a deer and rolled his pickup truck.

The roof of the Ford F-250 crumpled, and Parker didn't stand a chance. His neck broke and, at 37, he was paralyzed from the chest down. He sued, and Ford Motor Co. settled for an undisclosed amount.

"You can imagine what happens when you're belted in and the roof comes down even with the door," Parker said. "Your options are death or quadriplegia."

Parker's case and hundreds like it are behind a beefed-up roof safety standard proposed in August by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. But safety regulators tucked into the proposed rule something vehicle makers have long desired: protection from future roof-crush lawsuits like the one Parker filed.

The surprise move seeking legal protection for automakers is one in a series of recent steps by federal agencies to shield leading industries from state regulation and civil lawsuits on the grounds that they conflict with federal authority.

Some of these efforts are already facing court challenges. However, through arcane regulatory actions and legal opinions, the Bush administration is providing industries with an unprecedented degree of protection at the expense of an individual's right to sue and a state's right to regulate.

In other moves by the administration:

" The highway safety agency, a branch of the Department of Transportation, is backing auto industry efforts to stop California and other states from regulating tailpipe emissions they link to global warming. The agency said last summer that any such rule would be a backdoor attempt by states to encroach on federal authority to set mileage standards, and should be preempted.

" The Justice Department helped industry groups overturn a pollution-control rule in Southern California that would have required cleaner-running buses, garbage trucks and other fleet vehicles.

" The U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has repeatedly sided with national banks to fend off enforcement of consumer protection laws passed by California, New York and other states. The agency argued that it had sole authority to regulate national banks, preempting state restrictions.

" The Food and Drug Administration issued a legal opinion last month asserting that FDA-approved labels should give pharmaceutical firms broad immunity from most types of lawsuits. The agency previously had filed briefs seeking dismissal of various cases against drug companies and medical-device manufacturers.

In a letter to President Bush on Thursday, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said, "It appears that there may have been an administration-wide directive for agencies & to limit corporate liability through the rule-making process and without the consent of Congress."

Administration officials said the initiatives had not been centrally coordinated.

"Under the constitution, federal laws take priority over inconsistent state laws," said Scott Milburn, spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget. "Decisions about & whether particular rules should preempt state laws are made agency by agency and rule by rule."

Preemption initiatives by regulatory agencies have drawn less public attention than controversial legislative moves supported by the White House. With administration support, Congress has restricted class-action suits and banned certain claims against gun makers and vaccine producers.

By embedding similar protections for businesses in regulatory changes, the administration has advanced Bush's repeated pledge to rein in what he calls junk lawsuits.

On Thursday, for example, when the Consumer Product Safety Commission adopted a rule to curb mattress fires, it recommended for the first time that courts bar suits against manufacturers that comply with the new standard.

Schakowsky called the move "part of an unfortunate and troublesome pattern & to undermine consumer rights."

In addition to trying to bar suits over vehicle roof failures, the highway safety agency in recent months has sought broad legal protection for manufacturers in two other rules on the grounds that lawsuits could undermine its safety goals. One rule related to rear seat belts and the other to visibility requirements for trucks.

No similar exemption clauses have been attached to any other highway safety agency rule changes for 35 years.

Industry executives, lobbyists and lawyers have shuttled through jobs in the highway safety agency and other departments over the years, but in the Bush administration, auto industry ties have grown more conspicuous.

Before becoming White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr. served as a General Motors Corp. vice president and as chief executive of the top auto industry trade group.

The acting head of the highway safety agency, Jacqueline Glassman, was a senior attorney for DaimlerChrysler Corp. before she became the agency's chief counsel in 2002.

Jeffrey A. Rosen, who became general counsel at the Transportation Department in 2003, was a senior partner at Kirkland & Ellis, a powerhouse law firm that has defended GM in numerous product-liability suits and represents the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

Rosen denied using his position to benefit automakers.

"We have issued a number of major rules in the two years that I have been here," he said. "Some of them are supported by industry, some are opposed."

Michael S. Greve, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has written that preemption is crucial to protect the economy from "trial lawyers, ambitious state attorneys general and parochial state legislatures."

But critics say the preemption push contradicts the conservative ideals of a limited federal government and states' rights  principles espoused by Bush.

"This is the most aggressive federal government in the history of the United States," said California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, a Democrat.

Some say the election calendar is spurring the moves.

"The message has been clear in the last couple of years that if industries are going to get protection, they need to get it now," because no one knows what will happen in the next election, said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor.

Rollover accidents kill more than 10,000 people in the U.S. each year, and seriously injure an additional 16,000. Consumer groups say better roofs would have saved thousands of victims over time.

Automakers counter with the "roof dive" theory  that rollover victims fall head-first to the roof as it strikes the ground, injuring themselves whether the roof holds or buckles. Thus, they say, the value of stronger roofs is practically nil.

Brian O'Neill, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, called this argument "patently nonsense." If it were true, he said, people would be "just as well-off in a rollover in a convertible as a hardtop."

The highway safety agency always has agreed that roof failures can cause death and injury. Its roof-crush proposal estimates that 596 deaths and 807 serious injuries a year are linked to roof collapse.

Its proposed rule would increase the force a roof must withstand in a rollover from its current 1.5 times a vehicle's weight to 2.5 times  at a cost per vehicle of about $12. It would cover large trucks and SUVs of more than 6,000 pounds for the first time. The agency also is considering requiring stability control systems to reduce rollover risk.

The revised roof rule would create "the strongest ever uniform set of minimum & standards" for automakers in the U.S., Transportation Department spokesman Brian Turmail said.

However, the safety agency is projecting relatively modest benefits from the upgrade: 13 to 44 deaths and 500 to 800 injuries prevented a year. One reason: Nearly 70% of existing vehicles already meet the proposed standard.

Critics call this a token improvement. The stiffest criticism, however, has been reserved for the effort to grant immunity from lawsuits.

The safety agency says its push to preempt personal injury litigation is based on a concern that automakers, fearful of lawsuits, might beef up roofs to such an extent that the vehicles become top-heavy and more prone to roll over.

John G. Womack Jr., a former acting chief counsel at the safety agency, said that equating roof strength with weight was a "very debatable proposition." Other options are to use high-strength steel or widen the stance of vehicles to compensate for heavier roofs, he said.

Diverse groups  including Public Citizen, a consumer watchdog, and the National Conference of State Legislatures  have condemned the provision and questioned the highway safety agency's authority to protect automakers.

Some have complained that if companies could not be held liable for damages, it would remove incentives for automakers to exceed minimum safety standards.

A bipartisan group of 26 state attorneys general said in a December letter to the highway safety agency that the lawsuit ban, if accepted by the courts, would shift significant costs of caring for seriously injured victims from the industry to taxpayer-funded programs such as Medicaid. It would also conflict with consumer rights, they said.

"Such an extreme step is unwarranted in the absence of express congressional intent," they wrote.

Roof-crush suits have resulted in costly settlements and verdicts against automakers at a time of widespread financial trouble for the U.S. industry.

In 2004, Ford paid $41 million in a case in which a California appeals court compared the company's use of a fiberglass and metal roof in the 1978 Bronco to "involuntary manslaughter."

The same year, a San Diego jury awarded damages against Ford of $367 million, later reduced by the judge to $150 million. In 2003, GM was hit with a $19.6-million verdict, described as the largest product liability award in Nebraska history. The San Diego and Nebraska cases are being appealed.

For victims like Parker, the prospect of manufacturer immunity is an especially bitter pill.

The paralyzed Texas man, who had worked as a technician for a local utility, said he at least gained some financial security through litigation by extracting a settlement from Ford. Otherwise, he said, he and his wife "would have been living from hand to mouth."

He criticized the preemption clause, saying it was as if the industry had "this red phone and they just pick it up and it automatically dials NHTSA."

The immunity clause was unexpected, even to some in the industry.

"Whether this was some conspiracy or whether it was a pleasant surprise, I really don't know," said Barry Felrice, director of regulatory affairs with DaimlerChrysler in Washington.

Spokesmen for GM and Ford said that their companies had not lobbied for the lawsuit ban but that they supported it.

Bill Walsh, a former highway safety agency senior executive who worked on the rule before retiring in 2004, said the immunity language "was dropped in from out of the blue."

Preempting lawsuits, he said, was "different from how we normally operated & in issuing regulations."

Rosen, the Transportation Department's general counsel, said this was not the first time the highway safety agency had tried to override state liability laws.

During the 1990s, the agency joined automakers in arguing that they shouldn't be sued for not installing air bags at a time when the agency allowed either air bags or automatic seat belts. In 2000, the Supreme Court agreed that such suits were preempted but said that compliance with a standard ordinarily "does not immunize a manufacturer."

Card, the White House chief of staff, and Glassman, the agency's chief counsel, declined to discuss how the roof-crush lawsuit preemption originated. Rosen said he did not want "to get into the specifics of who said what to whom&. As a legal matter, I'm obliged to protect the deliberative process."

The Rev. Lawrence Harris of Pittsgrove, N.J., sees the issue from the vantage point of his wheelchair. Had his claim been preempted after a devastating accident with his family in North Carolina, he might not be preaching on Sundays.

Harris, then 46, was wearing a seat belt but suffered a fractured spine in 1997 when his Ford Econoline van rolled over. Except for minimal movement in his hands, he was paralyzed from the chest down.

With the damage award he won from Ford, Harris installed a roll-in shower and wheelchair lift in his house, hired a caretaker to help him dress each morning, and modified a van so he could continue as pastor of Olivet United Methodist Church.

Without the lawsuit, he said, "I would not be able to do the things I'm able to do." If automakers are immune, Harris said, "where is the check and balance going to be for them?"

Within days of its roof-crush proposal, the highway safety agency again backed the auto industry in challenging California's efforts to cut emissions.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers had gone to court to stop the state Air Resources Board from regulating tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, contending the rule was preempted.

Because carbon dioxide emissions drop when less fuel is burned, the industry attacked the rule as a backdoor attempt to regulate fuel economy  under federal law, the exclusive domain of the highway safety agency.

The agency agreed. On Aug. 23, it issued new mileage standards for light trucks, saying that its authority over fuel economy meant that "a state law that seeks to reduce motor vehicle carbon dioxide emissions is & preempted."

Industry lawyers filed papers the next day in U.S. District Court in Fresno informing the judge of the agency's position.

California's global warming rule, which would first apply to 2009 models, is not all that's at stake in the Fresno case. Ten states have copied California's emission rule, and all those rules could be wiped out if the industry wins.

Rosen's former law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, represents the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in the suit to block California's global warming rule. The suit was filed in late 2004, a year after Rosen left the firm to join the Transportation Department.

Transportation spokesman Turmail said Rosen did not discuss the matter with the law firm. In considering the safety agency's position on the matter, Rosen acted in the government's interest, Turmail said.

Eleven U.S. senators from both parties and 29 House Democrats from California have urged Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta to reverse the agency's opposition to the emissions standard.

"Rather than attempting to thwart such state efforts, the federal government should encourage states to develop innovative solutions to serious public health and environmental problems," the senators wrote to Mineta in December.

Kirkland & Ellis also represented automakers in another case against California regulators. In 2002, the industry  backed by the Justice Department  challenged a state rule that required production of a certain number of non-polluting vehicles.

Rosen said he did not participate in that case while he was with the law firm. The case was settled when the state agreed to remove language that the industry said amounted to regulating fuel economy.

The Bush administration also helped two industry groups overturn a regulation requiring the purchase of cleaner-running fleet vehicles such as buses and garbage trucks in Southern California.

The Engine Manufacturers Assn. and Western States Petroleum Assn. claimed the rule by the South Coast Air Quality Management District was preempted by federal law. Their challenge was rejected in federal district court and by a federal appeals court.

When the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Justice Department filed a brief siding with the industry. The high court agreed that the local rules were preempted.

In the past, said California's Atty. Gen. Lockyer, when industries challenged state regulations, "the federal government abstained from those lawsuits."

Now, he said, there's "a policy of rubber-stamping whatever business wants, and that's too bad."

The idea behind another California law was simple: Tell credit cardholders on monthly bills how long it would take to retire their debt if they paid the minimum amount.

But major banks issuing most of the nation's credit cards didn't like it. In a 2002 court challenge, they attacked the state's credit disclosure law with help from a powerful ally.

The U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency joined forces with the American Banking Assn., Citibank and other plaintiffs, arguing in a friend-of-the-court brief that the law interfered with federal authority to regulate national banks, and with powers granted to the banks by their federal charters.

A federal judge blocked the law from going into effect, and the state lost a subsequent appeal.

Intervention by the comptroller's office "definitely tipped the balance," said Gail Hillebrand, a lawyer for Consumers Union, which had backed the state's position.

In recent years, the comptroller's office on many occasions has helped national banks and their subsidiaries fend off investigations or enforcement actions by state officials on preemption grounds.

In 2004, for example, the agency helped to shoot down a California law that would have required customer permission before banks shared their personal information with business affiliates.

Although a U.S. District Court judge upheld the privacy law, an appeals court ruled last year that its major provisions were preempted by federal law.

Last year, the agency went to court on the side of a banking association to block an investigation by New York Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer into possible racial bias in the lending practices of several banks.

A federal judge agreed that Spitzer's investigation "impermissibly infringes" on the authority of the comptroller's office. The state is appealing.

Turf battles over banking regulation have occurred in the past, but the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has become more aggressive in pushing preemption under Bush.

Agency officials say they have zero tolerance for abusive practices and bristle at complaints that they might be chasing off state watchdogs to the detriment of consumers.

The banks "have an enormous body of consumer compliance laws and regulations that we apply to them at the federal level," said Julie L. Williams, the agency's senior deputy comptroller and chief counsel.

But Arthur E. Wilmarth Jr., a George Washington University professor specializing in banking law, said, "The OCC hasn't been, shall we say, a very zealous enforcer on the consumer side&. States have been far more vigorous."

Greve, the American Enterprise Institute scholar who has been a mainstay of the conservative brain trust promoting preemption, said well-connected industry law firms were part of a policy network providing legal and political rationale for the effort.

He called them "a merry band of Washington lawyers & who know how to push the buttons" and get things done.

Levin reported from Los Angeles and Miller from Washington. Times researcher Janet Lundblad in Los Angeles also contributed to this report.

Official ties to industry

Bush administration officials with previous ties to the auto industry:

Andrew H. Card Jr. was General Motors Corp.'s vice president of government relations. He represented GM on matters of public policy before Congress and the administration. From 1993 to 1998, Card was president and chief executive of the top auto industry trade group. He is now White House chief of staff.

Jacqueline Glassman was a senior regulatory counsel at Daimler-Chrysler Corp. She is now the acting head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Jeffrey A. Rosen was a senior partner at Kirkland & Ellis, a law firm that has defended GM in numerous product-liability suits and represents the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. He is the general counsel at the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Andrew H. Card, Jr. (http://www.conservativeusa.org/whosonfirst.htm) (b. May 10, 1947), is President George Walker Bush's Chief of Staff.

LINK

Card helped coordinate the White House campaign for an Iraq invasion. The New York Times in September 2002 quoted Card as saying, "From a marketing point of view you don't introduce new products in August." Card was explaining what the Times characterized as a "meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress, and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam Hussein." George W. Bush credited Card with the idea for Bush's brief visit to 600 U.S. soldiers celebrating Thanksgiving in Baghdad in 2003.(1) (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/28/international/middleeast/28SECR.html?pagewanted=print&position=)

Card served as Secretary of Transportation under President George Herbert Walker Bush (1992), and was Chief of Staff during the presidential transition in 2000-2001.

Card has also served as director of government affairs at General Motors Corp. (1999-2000); president and CEO, American Automobile Manufacturers Association (1993-1998); assistant to the president and deputy White House chief of staff (1989-92); New Hampshire primary campaign manager for George Bush (1987-88); special assistant to President Ronald Reagan for intergovernmental affairs (1983-87); candidate for Massachusetts governor (1983); various Massachusetts elected and appointed offices, including state legislator (1971-82); structural design engineer (1971-75). He received a B.S. in engineering from U.S.C. in 1971.[2] (http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/121600/gen_1216007436.shtml)

According to the December 16, 2000, Associated Press article "Tracking Card's political career," (http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/121600/gen_1216007436.shtml)

"Two decades ago, Andrew Card was part of a group of brash Republican newcomers out to rattle the entrenched Massachusetts Democratic Party.

"He is now on his way to the ultimate White House insider's post: chief of staff to President-elect George W. Bush. A formal announcement, delayed by Bush for weeks because of the disputed presidential election, could come as early as Saturday.

"Card already has Bush family and White House credentials.

"He was President Ronald Reagan's liaison to the nation's governors and then, after George Bush (the president-elect's father) was elected president in 1988, Card stayed on as assistant to chief of staff John Sununu. He later became transportation secretary.

"Those who've known him the longest say it's the skills Card learned in the trench warfare of Bay State politics -- along with hard work, a sharp mind and unflinching loyalty -- that have him on the verge of his important new job.

"'He has no guile. He's someone you trust. He's fiercely loyal and people are fiercely loyal to him,' said Andrew Natsios, a Card confidant now in charge of Boston's massive 'Big Dig' highway project.

"'If Andy's asked a question he will tell you the answer even if you don't want to hear it, and presidents need those kind of people around,' Natsios said. 'It's a long road from state representative to chief of staff for president of the United States, but with Andy it's not surprising.'

"Card's history with the Bush family began in 1980.

"That was then when he, Natsios and Paul Cellucci -- the incumbent Massachusetts governor who is believed to be in line for a Bush administration job -- led the elder George Bush's presidential campaign in Massachusetts.

"Cellucci was one of the first governors to publicly back the younger Bush's campaign. Natsios helped manage international relief operations in the elder Bush's administration.

"Card, after a failed run for governor in 1982, joined Reagan's administration and stayed through Bush's.

"After the Democrats won the White House in 1992, Card helped organize the transition, then found a lobbying job with the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, representing the big three U.S. car companies.

"That led to a job as director of government affairs for General Motors for Card, who lives in Holbrook, Mass. He took a leave of absence when the Bush family came calling again.

"This time, it was President Bush's son, George W., who sought him out to coordinate the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia. Card is credited with staging a seamless political coronation with no intraparty squabbling.

"Ed Gillespie, the Republican consultant who served as Card's No. 2 at the convention, said his boss' management style and disregard for 'the trappings of power' suit him for the job of White House chief of staff.... The success of the convention raised Card's stock with Bush, as did his personal style....

"Card's ability to work with both Democrats and Republicans could be of help to Bush, who as president may need to court Democratic support in a deeply divided Congress. As a moderate, Card counts even liberal Democrats among his admirers....

"Card's first political lessons came at his family's dinner table. His father was on the local school committee and ran for state representative. His brother, Brad, is chief of staff for Rep. John Sweeney, R-N.Y. His sister, Allison, works for Republican Connecticut Gov. John Rowland.

"Card honed his consensus-building skills in the Massachusetts House, where he united Republican and Democratic dissidents to take on the powerful Democratic speaker. 'They knew all the parliamentary rules,' said Republican consultant Charley Manning. Card was particularly fond of chasing down 'cockroach bills' -- spending bills lawmakers scurry away from when the light is turned on, Manning said.

"In 1980, Card also helped form the Ward Commission, which investigated corruption in construction of the Boston campus of the University of Massachusetts."

"Teen Screen": A Front Group for the Psycho-Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex

GWB HAS FAITH IN PSYCHIATRY

"A nationwide initiative has been quietly in the making since 2002. Conceived in Texas, apparently with President George W. Bushs enthusiastic blessing, there are now some 27 sites around the country piloting various parts of it. Nationally, however, the proposed legislation earned barely a blip on the radar screen  the project is so hush-hush that two officials were sacked for speaking to the press about it  until mid-July, when the House Appropriations Committee approved $20 million in new federal monies to begin nationwide implementation."

BUSHS "NEW FREEDOM" IS ANCIENT TYRANNY

"The New Freedom Initiative is a plan to screen the entire U.S. population for mental illness and to provide a cradle-to-grave continuum of services for those identified as either mentally ill or at risk of becoming so. Under the plan, schools would become hubs of the screening process  not only for children but for their parents and teachers. There are even components aimed at senior citizens, pregnant women, and new mothers.

"In April 2002, President Bush established the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health to conduct a comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system. The commission issued its recommendations in July 2003, chief among them being that schools are in a key position to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at educational facilities."

THIS ANTI-CHRISTIAN SCHEME WAS LAUNCHED IN TEXAS WHEN DUBYA WAS GOVERNOR

"The precursor endeavor, the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP), was a trial balloon, not a pilot program. This means a start-up venture (usually confined to one town or state) to assess the amount and type of resistance to an idea. TMAP started in 1995 as an alliance of individuals from the pharmaceutical industry, the University of Texas, and the mental-health and corrections systems of Texas. Recently, the New Freedom Commission designated TMAP a model medication-treatment plan, whereupon President Bush instructed more than 25 federal agencies to develop a nationwide implementation plan. "

BIG DRUG COMPANIES SEE PROFITS

"TMAP was funded through a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation grant  and several drug companies that stand to gain billions of dollars. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is the philanthropic (read: p.r.) arm of the Johnson & Johnson medical-supply/household-products empire and a major player in promoting controversial prevention curricula in schools. &

"At a time when Congress and the FDA are questioning the role of many antidepressants in suicide and violent aggression, legislation that would target even more children and adults for unproved, radical psychotropic-drug therapies is highly suspect."

GWBS OMB DIRECTOR (MITCH DANIELS) WORKED FOR ELI LILLY

"Take, for example, Olanzapine (trade name Zyprexa), one of the newer antipsychotic drugs recommended in the Texas plan. It is Eli Lillys top seller. A 2003 New York Times article by Gardiner Harris reported that 70 percent of Olanzapine sales already are paid for by government agencies, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

"Eli Lilly has multiple ties to the Bush administration. George Bush, Sr., was a member of Lillys board of directors. Lilly made $1.6 million in political contributions in 2000  82 percent of which went to George W. Bush and the Republican Party. President Bush appointed Lillys chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to a seat on the Homeland Security Council."

GWB BOASTS OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEDICAID INVOLVEMENT IN PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS

"During his 2000 presidential campaign, Bush boasted of his support for Texas TMAP project, without saying exactly how it worked or the role he envisioned for it nationally. Instead, he bragged that the legislation he passed expanded Medicaid coverage of psychotropic drugs. &"

YOUR PSYCHO RECORD WILL FOLLOW YOU THROUGHOUT LIFE

"(S)tigma will, in fact, be heightened as the hapless young patient moves into the workforce and the nursing home. He will be permanently classified as at risk and tracked for a lifetime by government agencies. &"

BUSH PUSHES COMPREHENSIVE INVASIONS OF PRIVACY

"Special interests as well as various social-service agencies and universities all pitch prevention programs (many of them quasipolitical, such as those on AIDS awareness) to federal agencies in an effort to get tell-all polls into Americas classrooms. Most are What would you do if &? questionnaires and self-reports that focus on sex, race, depression, drugs, and parents. These surveys are followed by a smorgasbord of non-academic programs. The rationale is that it is in the best interests of the child and society to [create] a State-level structure for school-based mental health services to provide consistent State-level leadership and collaboration between education, general health, and mental health systems. "

"NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND" IS THE DOOR OPENER

"The enabling vehicle for the New Freedom Initiative is the No Child Left Behind Act, ostensibly to fulfill the promise of NCLB & by remov(ing) the emotional, behavioral, and academic barriers that interfere with student success in school. &

"The commission seeks not only to assess youngsters but to expand school mental health programs and evaluate parents  through Parts B and C of IDEA. &

" Treating parents means psychotherapy and drugs, and the initiative calls for a mandate to provide social and emotional check-ups in all primary healthcare facilities. This means parents are supposed to be surreptitiously assessed for mental illness every time they walk into their physicians office."

STALIN ALREADY TRIED THIS

"Have policymakers learned nothing from the holocaust, the old Soviet Unions psychiatric hospitals, or, more recently, South Africas so-called mental institutions, where political dissidents were routinely re-educated and/or tortured? &

"In August 2003, the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Science Foundation announced the results of their $1.2 million taxpayer-funded study. It stated, essentially, that traditionalists are mentally disturbed. Scholars from the Universities of Maryland, California at Berkeley, and Stanford had determined that social conservatives, in particular, suffer from mental rigidity, dogmatism, and uncertainty avoidance, together with associated indicators for mental illness." Source: B.K. Eakman, Chronicles, October 2004, pp. 28-29.

118 REPUBLICANS VOTED FOR BUSH SCHEME TO MAKE AMERICA A COAST-TO-COAST PSYCHIATRIC WARD

"On Sept. 9, the Ron Paul Amendment was defeated in the House of Representatives by a vote of 95-315. The Amendment would have prevented the funds sought by an appropriations bill (HR 5006) from being used for the mandatory mental-health screening of Americans, including public schoolchildren."

The 118 GOP Congressmen who voted for this incredible violation of parental rights were:

Bachus (Ala.), Baker (La.), Barton (Tex.), Bass (N.H.), Beauprez (Colo.), Blunt (Mo.), Boehlert (N.Y.), Boehner (Ohio), Bonilla (Tex.), Bono (Calif.), Bradley (N.H.), Brown (S.C.), Burr (N.C.), Buyer (Ind.), Calvert (Calif.), Capito (W.Va.), Carter (Tex.), Castle (Del.), Crenshaw (Fla.), Cunningham (Calif.), Tom Davis (Va.), L. Diaz-Balart (Fla.), M. (Diaz-Balart (Fla.), Dreier (Calif.), Dunn (Wash.), Ehlers (Mich.), Emerson (Mo.), English (Pa.), Ferguson (N.J.), Foley (Fla.), Fossella (N.Y.), Gallegly (Calif.), Gerlach (Pa.), Gibbons (Nev.), Gilchrest (Md.), Gillmor (Ohio), Gingrey (Ga.), Granger (Tex.), Hall (Tex.), Harris (Fla.), Hastings (Wash.), Hayworth (Ariz.), Hobson (Ohio), Houghton (N.Y.), Hulshof (Mo.), Hyde (Ill.), Isakson (Ga.), Issa (Calif.), Jenkins (Tenn.), Johnson (Conn.), Sam Johnson (Tex.), Keller (Fla.), Kelly (N.Y.), King (N.Y.), Kirk (Ill.), Kline (Minn.), Knollenberg (Mich.), Kolbe (Ariz.), LaHood (Ill.), Latham (Iowa), LaTourette (Ohio), Leach (Iowa), Lewis (Calif.), LoBiondo (N.J.), McCrery (La.), McHugh (N.Y.), McKeon (Calif.), Mica (Fla.), Murphy (Pa.), Ney (Ohio), Northup (Ky.), Nunes (Calif.), Nussle (Iowa), Osborne (Neb.), Pearce (N.M.), Peterson (Pa.), Pickering (Miss.), Platts (Pa.), Porter (Nev.), Portman (Ohio), Putnam (Fla.), Radanovich (Calif.), Regula (Ohio), Rehberg (Mont.), Renzi (Ariz.), Reynolds (N.Y.), Rogers (Ala.), Rogers (Ky.), Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), Shays (Conn.), Sherwood (Pa.), Shimkus (Ill.), Simmons (Conn.), Smith (N.J.), Taylor (N.C.), Thomas (Calif.), Tiberi (Ohio), Turner (Ohio), Walden (Ore.), Walsh (N.Y.), Wamp (Tenn.), Weldon (Fla.), Weldon (Pa.), Weller (Ill.), Wicker (Miss.), Wilson (N.M.), Wilson (S.C.), Wolf (Va.), and Young (Fla.). (House Roll Call no. 438, 9/9/04)

"Prior to the House vote, (Congressman) Paul had vehemently denounced mandatory mental-health screening in a letter to fellow congressmen. Paul wrote, (P)sychotropic drugs are increasingly prescribed for children who show nothing more than childrens typical rambunctious behavior. Many children have suffered harmful effects from these drugs. Yet some parents have even been charged with child abuse for refusing to drug their children. The federal government should not promote national mental-health screening programs that will force the use of these psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin.

"The idea of nationally screening school children for mental health stems from the establishment of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health in 2002. Its mission is to promote successful community integration for adults with a serious mental illness and children with a serious emotional disturbance. &

"(A)s WorldNetDaily reports, the commissions panel recommended comprehensive mental health screening for "consumers of all ages," including preschool children & Schools, the panel concluded, are in a "key position" to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools.

"The public schools would address the mental health needs of youth in the education system through prevention, early identification, early intervention, and treatment. How early? &

"The bill has moved onto the Senate, where it will be heard before the end of the year." Source: Wendy McElroy, LewRockwell.com, 9/16/04

Excerpted from HPISB  September 15, 2004

BUSH WANTS TO PSYCHOANALYZE YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN

The American tradition of parents deciding what is best for their children is, yet again, under attack. The pharmaceutical industry has convinced President Bush to support mandatory mental-health screening for every child in America, including preschool children, and the industry is now working to convince Congress as well. But mandatory screening alone is not what the pharmaceutical industry wants. The real payoff for the drug companies is the forced drugging of children that will result - as we learned tragically with Ritalin - even when parents refuse.

MANDATORY DRUGGING MAY BE THE NEXT STEP

Congressman Ron Paul, an OB/GYN physician for over 30 years, is desperately trying to keep the drug companies, politicians and federal bureaucrats from becoming parents to your children. Dr. Paul will introduce on Wednesday afternoon or Thursday morning (whenever the floor schedule allows) an amendment to the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Act for FY 2005 that will withhold funds for this new federal mental-health-screening program. He will urge his congressional colleagues to support his effort in a letter to be distributed tomorrow morning.

Dr. Pauls letters says in part: As you know, psychotropic drugs are increasingly prescribed for children who show nothing more than childrens typical rambunctious behavior. Many children have suffered harmful effects from these drugs. Yet some parents have even been charged with child abuse for refusing to drug their children. The federal government should not promote national mental health screening programs that will force the use of these psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin. 

IT BEGAN WHEN DUBYA WAS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS

If you think this action alert is about something that cant happen here, think again. In 1995, the state of Texas launched the Texas Medication Algorithm Project. (WorldNetDaily.com, June 21, 2004)

The state of Illinois has also approved a mental health screening program. The Illinois legislature passed the Childrens Mental Health Act of 2003 which will provide screening for all children ages 0-18 and ensure appropriate and culturally relevant assessment of your childrens social and emotional development with the use of standardized tools. In addition, all pregnant women in Illinois are to be screened for depression.

STIGMATIZING DIAGNOSES WILL BE ON THEIR PERMANENT RECORDS

Dr. Karen R. Effrem, another physician and leading opponent of mandatory screening recently stated, Universal mental health screening and the drugging of children, as recommended by the New Freedom Commission (presidential commission), needs to be stopped so that many thousands if not millions of children will be saved from receiving stigmatizing diagnoses that would follow them for the rest of their lives. Americas school children should not be medicated by expensive, ineffective, and dangerous medications based on vague and dubious diagnoses.

Dr. Effrem warns of the following: 1. Parental rights are unclear or non-existent under these screening programs. 2. Parents are already being coerced to put their children on psychiatric medications and some children are dying because of it. 3. Mental health screening does not prevent suicide. 4. Mental health diagnoses are subjective and social constructions as admitted by the authors of the diagnostic manuals themselves. 5. Most psychiatric medications do not work in children. 6. The side effects of these medications in children are severe. 7. The untoward influence by the pharmaceutical industry, or at least the impropriety, is abundantly clear in two important aspects of this issue.

OPPOSITION TO SODOMY AND NEW WORLD ORDER CAN GET YOU LABELED NUTS

8. Merging screening with the academic standards required by No Child Left Behind, as is happening in Illinois, will lead to diagnosis for political reasons. School mental health and violence prevention programs funded by NCLB and government counterterrorism operations are already using such criteria as homophobia and defenders of the US Constitution against federal government and the UN to label school children and US citizens as mentally unstable and violent. &

THANKS TO BUSH COMMISSION, PSYCHOPOLITICS COULD ENSNARE ADULT CITIZENS
PSYCHOPOLITICS - the art and science of asserting and maintaining dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of individuals, officers, bureaus, and masses, and the effecting of the conquest of enemy nations through "mental healing."

One last note & if mental-health screening for every American child isnt bad enough, how about mandatory mental-health screening for every American adult? Yes, thats coming too. The final report of the Presidents New Freedom Commission on Mental Health states, Both children and adults will be screened for mental illnesses during their routine physical exams.  Source: Kent Snyder, The Liberty Committee, www.thelibertycommittee.org, 9/7/04

July 15, 2002

BUSH INCLUDES PSYCHIATRIC COUNSELING AND DRUG SUBSIDIES IN HIS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE AGENDA

Joel Skousen writes (World Affairs Brief, 5/3/02) that "In another move destined to vastly increase Americans use of psychotropic drugs like Ritalin and Prozac, President George Bush has announced his support for the concept of a mandated Mental Health Parity law. Currently, even with huge increases in the use of these drugs, which supposedly suppress hyper, erratic or depressed behavior, there is considerable resistance to their use  mainly because they are not covered by insurance."

YOUR TAXES AND YOUR MEDICAL COSTS WILL RISE

"This type of law would mandate that private insurers accept claims for mental health as well as physical health. Broadly defined, as mental health practitioners demand, mental health can encompass almost anything. It is a Pandoras box which will lead to huge increases in the cost of insurance, which when passed on to company benefit plans, will undoubtedly leave less money available for legitimate physical ailments. Proponents counter that costs have not risen in states that have passed mental health parity insurance laws on their own  but they fail to mention that this happens because states cut back on other benefit programs in anticipation of the increases in costs due to mental health coverage. Like any other form of broadly defined and distributed benefit, once people learn they can tap professional services (at someone elses expense) for every emotional and mental aberration they experience, costs will exponentially increase  creating a demand for other draconian legislative edicts later on. &"

A BRAVE NEW WORLD  BUSHS DRUG WAR ON AMERICA

"Of greater concern to those of (us) who recognize the existence of conscience, is the knowledge that psychotropic drugs suppress that central portion of the brain which picks up the subtle signals of conscience. As a result, people on psychotropic drugs become desensitized to that key source of divine guidance and warning which helps guard against actions and attitudes that lead to mental problems, and which prompts people to do what is right. This desensitization is dangerous to a persons spiritual health, as spiritual evil can induce increased melancholy and resistance to beneficial change. It is no wonder that there is a high correlation between suicide and the long-term use, or sudden disuse, of these mind-altering drugs. If you or your children are on these drugs, get off of them as soon as possible, being careful to guard against their powerful after-effects. It seems that the only ones fighting this battle on ideological grounds are those parents whose children have been victims of the damaging effects of these drugs  a growing lobby. The rest of us need to get on the bandwagon too."