Conference moira::parenting

Permission to cross post has been granted by the author.

daryll
         <<< CNOTES::DISK$NOTES:[NOTES$LIBRARY]NEW_HAMPSHIRE.NOTE;2 >>>
                             -< The Granite State >-
================================================================================
Note 2273.34         DCYS - are they trustworthy in Nashua?             34 of 34
RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."        365 lines  18-SEP-1992 08:13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:	WASTED::"n8ino!craig" 18-SEP-1992 01:47:02.98
CC:	
Subj:	More info on S.2

Here's some more information in regards to the PAT law that they are
trying to pass right now in the Senate.  They were trying to get it
passed before midnight the 18th, but it may not get out until Monday
the 21st.  You MUST call your senators TODAY!!  Just call
202-224-3121, tell them where you live, and they'll connect you to
your senator's office.


Fellow Activists:

There is a bill currently in Congress that will limit our basic rights even
further. Read this carefully, it's pretty convoluted.

S.2 is the Omnibus Education Bill. S.2 was amended to include HB.4323, the
house version of the Omnibus Education Bill. S.2 has also had S.1275 amended to
it, and S.1275, as amended, includes a program called the "Parents as Teachers"
program. Sounds innocuous, right? Keep reading.

"Parents as Teachers" means that a family will have a social worker assigned to
it if:
	o a woman is pregnant
	o there is a child age 0 to 3 years
	o there is a teenager at risk of becoming pregnant

The social worker will come into your home, unannounced, up to 8 times a year
for an individual family "session", and 4 times a year for "group" sessions.
While in the home, they will assess your family to see if the children are "at
risk."

"At risk" has many possible definitions. There is a document published by the
Department of Health and Human Services called "Healthy People 2000" and
written by The American Academy of Pediatrics and other busybody groups, which
includes a long list of criteria, and this is the document being referenced by
the lawmakers when they consider these definitions. This document will be the
template on which the regulations promulgated by this bill if it passes will be
based. This document defines that a child can be "at risk" if any of  the
following conditions exist:

	o The parents aren't using "positive parenting", which means

	   - no physical punishment
	   - no verbal abuse (defined as embarrassment, humiliation, ordering,
	     labeling, nagging, threats, begging, sarcasm, scaring, spoiling,
	     or making the child feel guilty)

	o Either parent has a military background
	o Either parent is a "Fundamentalist Christian"
	o A recent move has occurred in the family
	o a recent career change has occurred in the family
	o the parents are divorced or separated
	o the home is being renovated
	o there is no gate on the stairways
	o there are sharp objects in view
	o any firearm can be accessed in 10 minutes or less

As the bill is written, "at risk" will be judicially defined. Health and Human
Services has indicated that they will implement the list above as regulations.

If your children are deemed by the social worker to be "at risk", there is
mandated foster care, for a minimum of 2 days. (This is under a section
entitled "Forced Parent Support Activities")

Note that as this is written along with current law in NH, a NH social worker 
would then initiate a termination of parental rights petition in District 
Court. Other states may have similar laws. We already know of 3 families where 
they were forced to get rid of guns in order to get their children back. What
will happen if these social workers get into every home where there are
children? As we know, 1/2 of all households have a firearm. Parents will be
forced to choose between their guns and their children!

This is a very serious threat to liberty-loving people everywhere, and it's
also very bad for gun owners, especially those of us with children. We must
call our senators and congressmen to tell them we oppose the "Parents as
Teachers" program in the Omnibus Education bill. We can also oppose the huge
costs involved with this bill, as it forces the states to pick up the full
costs of this intrusion into our lives by year 5 of implementation.

The bill is currently in conference committee, with BOTH parties working to get
it out and onto the floor of both chambers very soon. There will probably be a
vote early next week. It's being kept under wraps (notice there is no media
coverage?).

Call your congressman and Senators today to oppose this bill. Tell them to vote 
against the conference report if it has the "Parents as teachers" language in
it, to vote to sustain a filibuster (i.e. not invoke cloture), and to vote to 
sustain a Presidential veto). Bush will veto it if it has the School-based
abortion clinics in it, but will sign anything else (so he doesn't look like
he's not the "Education President").

The following is a exerpt form FAMILIY PRACTICE NEWS (March 15-31 1991)

	"The message is clear - spanking and other forms of physical
	punishment are unnecessary and may be HARMFUL.

	"American Academy of Pediatrics states: Too often PARENTS
	CONFUSE DISIPLINE WITH PUNISHMENT.

	"The National Committee on the Prevention of Child Abuse
	states that:  We will not be able to stop the current
	epidemic of child abuse until WE NO LONGER BASE OUR
	DISIPLINE OF CHILDREN ON PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT.  WE MUST
	ABANDON PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT.  Equally unecessary are:
	EMBARRASSING a child, HUMILIATING a child, ORDERING a
	child, LABELING a child, NAGGING a child, THREATING a
	child, BEGGING a child, Using SARCASM with a child,
	SCARING a child, SPOILING a child, or MAKING A CHILD
	FEEL GUILTY."



As you can see from the previous exerpt it is a STEP by STEP removal of
all forms of disipline/punishment.


Exerpts from AMERICAN MEDICAL NEWS (January 20, 1992)

	"American Association of Pediatrics is calling for a ban
	on handguns, air guns ( B.B. and pellet ) and assult
	weapons. 

	"In two recent statements, the academy also urged
	pediatricians to counsel children and their families about 
	the IMPORTANCE OF REMOVING OR AT LEAST SAFELY STORING
	FIREARMS IN THEIR HOMES.

	"The academy recommends:
		
		- Regulating handgun ammunition.
		- Discouraging the media from romanticizing gun use.
		- Identifying HIGH RISK TEENS to give them age-
		  appropriate services.
		- Developing community-based coalitions to address
		  issues of public education, protective interventions
		  social action."

The Union Leader (January 14, 1992):

	"A state Child Abuse Prevention Leadership Team has been created
	by executive order...The team includes parents, lawmakers, state
	agency officials and professionals from community programs.

	- "[E]stablishing local child abuse and neglect prevention
	  councils.

	- "Advocating  for needed community-based prevention programs."

The American Medical Association News (January 1992), "Violence in the
Family":

	Dr. Murray Straus, director of the Family Research Lab at UNH in 
	Durham stated: "I want to focus not on physical abuse of spouses
	and kids, as I have until now, but on ORDINARY PHYSICAL 
	PUNNISHMENT OF KIDS."

The following is an update from Senator Bob Smith R-NH on the status
of S.2.  HB 4323 has been incorporated into S2.  They are planning
on voting on this by 00 hours Saturday.  We must call all our Senators
and tell them that this bill is very bad and that we do not want it to
pass.

This bill provides seed money from the Federal Government.

This bills purpose is to encourage States to develop and expand parent
education programs.  This will increase parents knowledge of appropriate
child rearing activities, strengthen partnerships between parents and
schools. 

Definitions for this bill are:

Developmental Screening - Process of measuring the progress of 
children to determine if THERE ARE PROBLEMS or POTENTIAL PROBLEMS.

		This translates into invasion of privacy due
		to the remote possibility that you may be
		raising your children in a way that is not
		POLITCALLY CORRECT according to the "NEW
		WORLD ORDER".

Eligible Family - A parent with one or more children between the last
trimester of pregnancy and three years of age.  

		This has been changed so that now ALL families
		are required to participate.  The non-participatory
		clause had been omitted.  For many families their
		are multiple children.  You may have a child under
		3 for a decade.  So you fall under this program.


Lead Agency - The office or Agency in a State (NH it is the Department
of Children and Youth Services) designated by the Govenor to administer
the program.

		This means Social Workers, many who are just out of
		College and have an idealistic view of parenting
		because they have never been parents.

Parent Education - Includes PARENT SUPPORT ACTIVITIES, educational
guidance, and learning experiences for the PARENT and child.

		Parent Support Activities are those which have
		been accepted by the National Committee on the
		prevention of Child Abuse.  Any parent who
		exhibits the following are PARENTS AT RISK. These
		families then qualify for PARENTAL RE-EDUCATION.

			Disipline with Physical Punishment
				    or
			Embarrassing a child
			Humiliating a child
			Ordering a child
			Labeling a child
		  	Nagging a child
			Threating a child
			Begging a child
			Using Sarcasm
			Spoiling a child
			or making a child feel guilty.

		PARENTS AT RISK confuse disipline with punishment.
		
		Dr. Murray Straus, University of New Hampshire -
		Durham.
     		States - I want to focus not on physical abuse of
		spouses and kids, as I have until now, BUT ON ORDINARY
		PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT OF KIDS. 

The Text of the bill S.2 defines AT RISK PARENTS to include:

		Teenage parents
		illiterate parents
		economically disadvantaged parents
		offenders and their families
		unemployed parents
		learning disabled parents
		non-english speaking parents

Any STATE operating this program shall be eligible to recieve a grant under thispart.   

		MONEY FOR YOUR STATE WHEN THEY PARTICIPATE

Section 4706 PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

Operates PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAMS including DEVELOPMENTAL SCREENING of
children.

REQUIRE that the STATE provide for each family:
		
		A MINIMUM OF 4 GROUP MEETINGS AND 8 HOME VISITS.


	
Section 4708 Evaluations:

	"The secretary shall complete an evaluation of the STATE PARENT
	 AS TEACHER programs with 4 years from the date of enactment of
	 this part."


Section 4710. Payments and Federal Share

	" For the first year for which a State receives assistance under
	  this part shall be 100 percent."

	" For the second such year shall be 100 percent."

	" For the third such year shall be 75 percent."
	
	" For the forth such year shall be 50 percent."

	" For the fifth such year 25 percent."   

	" The non-federal share of payments under this part may be in 
	  cash or in kind fairly evaluated, including planned equipment
	  or services."

Section 4711 Appropriations

	$ 20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1992,1993, 1994,1995
	and 1996 to carry out this act.

--------

	SENATE BILL 2 (Omnibus Education Bill).

	These bills have been amended to include a "Parents as
	Teachers" program which is nothing more than "CRADLE TO
	GRAVE SOCIALISM".

	Amid the well meaning platitudes, you will find parental
	re-education, child-surveillance from birth, intrusive
	child interrogation in the home, destruction of family
	values through programs of value-clarifiction, replacement
	of all local control with Federal control for education
	thereby circumventing elected school boards, deceptive
	methods of gun control and removal to circumvent POTENTIAL
        family violence. Your children will be held hostage for your
        guns. 

	In fact, these bills are so broad that they can plug in
	anything they want or anything they don't want and
	hold your children hostage until you follow their way
	of thinking or behaving.
	
        If you are a LOW-RISK family (you will be screened to
	determine if there are problems or potential problems)
	you are only required to have 8 home visits a year and 4
	group meetings per year.  However, if you are concidered
	HIGH-RISK, the pschotherapy alone will cost approx
	$ 5,000 to 10,000 per year per child. 

	Your Taxes will be increased due to the shear magnitude 
	of this new army of social workers. Now all families are
 	at risk and will have to be visited by a state-trained
	social worker (parent re-educator).
	 
	You will be concidered HIGH-RISK if you meet a specific
	profile which is tightened on a regular basis.  You may
	never have had any involvement with the LAW, you maybe
	a Military Family, A Fundementalist Christian, you may just
	have a particular ethnic background and you may be poor
	or rich.  Any combination of any of the previous factors
        increases your risk profile.  

        If you teach your children that the constitution is the
	law of this land, or that the constitution of the U.S.
	does not support or allow for the "New World Order" you 
	will be concidered High-Risk.  The government can no
	longer allow the patriot spirit of Liberty to exist in
	the United States.  

	Families used to be the smallest unit of government and
	as such handled many low level functions of government,
	(such as raising children), however, now the government 
	has become so large that they must increase their bureaucratic 
	monopolies and in so doing they usurp functions not given 
	them and monopolize all individual entities.

	To claim people are free to choose their own government,
	but then insist that the government determine the very
	attitudes and values by which the people choose becomes
	the most insidious and pernicious form of tyranny.  It
	gives the people the illusion of freedom, while all
	along controlling them through a form of mass governmental
	programming.

	Bills such as these are nothing short of tolitarianism.

	CALL YOUR CONGRESSMEN, CALL YOUR SENATORS, LET THEM KNOW
	THAT THE PATRIOT SPIRIT LIVES ON AND WE WILL NOT PUT
	UP WITH THE AGENDAS SET FORTH IN THESE BILLS OR OTHER
	PROGRAMS SUCH AS HEALTHY PEOPLE 2000, AMERICA 2000, JOBS
	2000 AND EDUCATION 2000.  THEY ARE SOCIALISM AT ITS WORST.

	IF BILLS SUCH AS THIS PASS AND YOU ALLOW THEM TO, THEN
	OUR REPUBLIC WILL BE TRANSFORMED INTO TYRANNY, AND WE
	WILL HAVE ONLY OURSELVES TO BLAME.

	We Must take back America from the Socialist Engineers.

[email protected]

    I was just about to add this myself.  Thanks for putting it here.  I am
    truly amazed at what the government thinks is GOOD for us!!!
    
    -sandy
    

>The Text of the bill S.2 defines AT RISK PARENTS to include:
>
>		Teenage parents
>		illiterate parents
>		economically disadvantaged parents
>		offenders and their families
>		unemployed parents
>		learning disabled parents
>		non-english speaking parents  !!!!

Since when is speaking English a requirement to being a good parent??  I know
lot's of people (Americans especially) who don't speak English :-) 

If they made having a gun in the house a risk factor over here it would include
every Swiss family with a male between the ages of 19 and 45.  They all have
a machine gun, issued by the army, at home :-)

Come on!! You people are not telling me that the U.S. has so much unemploy-
ment that they now intend to employ the surplus as social workers spying on 
their neighbors !-)

    Is this bill being presented in NH only, or will this bill effect
    Massachusetts as well?
    
    

This is a National Education Bill.

Call Washington.

daryll

    Who would you call in Massachussetts if you want to stop this
    bill......
    
    Sarah

Call the number listed at the beginning of the message. Tell them 
where your from and they will transfer you to your US senator or 
rep. The 202 area code is Washington DC.

   For MA - 2 names would be Kerry and Kennedy.  Interestingly enough, I
   seem to recall reading in the New Hampshire conference where this
   started that Kennedy was one of the co-authors... 
   
   No Comment! 
   
   - Tom
   

    I don't deny .0's concern for his/our family, but is this really
    the case?  Many years ago, I wrote to the Chairman of the Federal
    Communications Commission about a bill that was supposed to
    ban religious broadcasting, or something like that.  A couple of
    weeks after I sent the letter, I read in the paper (both on the
    news pages and in "Dear Abby") that the bill was not before the
    commission at all, and in fact no such bill had ever been presented.
    
    If .0 is correct, I will do all I can to prevent its passage, but
    I would like to know exactly what this bill is intended to do before
    I put pen to paper.

    
    Quick question...
    
    If this bill passes, will participation in Parents as Teachers (P.A.T.)
    be *mandatory* or voluntary? Right now, as far as I know, P.A.T.
    already exists and is strictly voluntary, although I have heard it is
    almost impossible to discontinue the program, should you change you
    mind, once it has begun.
    
    Mandatory two day removal to foster care if parents are fundamental
    Christians or military? Really???
    
    --dave--

   re: .9
   
   I too recall hearing about that FCC/religious broadcasting bill -
   several times over the last 5-6 years actually.  I think I heard that
   it was real at one time, but that the bill itself died many years ago
   and that the legend has had trouble going away.

   On the other hand, I have already called the Wash. D.C. number listed
   in that note myself and there is an open bill by that name.  I can't
   vouch for its contents,  but at least it does exist.  I'd recommend
   looking at the original note in the New-Hampshire conference for more
   references if you like.

   btw - I admire your ability to step back and take an objective look at
   the report before jumping into the fray.  It took me quite some time
   to get to that point myself... 
   
   - Tom
   

First, I've seen many such pleas for "calls to Congress". This is typically
overzealous. There is an Omnibus Education Act. Does it really contain all
the stuff in the basenote as it was described? Very Unlikely. The Mass. General
Laws have some very similar language in them around the responsibilities of 
D.S.S. I would like to see the actual language of the bill rather than the
opinions of an activist who is already clearly against it.

Second, overzealous appeals of this nature are alarmist and one-sided. Calls
for action in this spirit have no place in a notesfile.

Rather than taking this message to heart I suggest we all find out what the
real story is.

I admit I have only read .0 once, but I am confused.

	What is the intended purpose of this bill?  

Barbara

I just spoke to Senator Kennedy's office. An education is going to get back to
me. There is such a bill. Kennedy is one of the sponsors. He also is the chair
of the Senate Education Committee. As soon as I get some clarification I'll
enter it here.

Oops, that's supposed to read an education AIDE. 

I just spoke with someone from Kennedy's office.  They seemed to say that
this bill would only conduct a STUDY, and not actually implement any
program.  Also, they lady told me that this bill is only in conference
and will not be voted on for a while yet.  She did say that it would
be voted on long before the election, since Congress ends session in 
October.

This things scares the h*ll out of me, even if it is only 10% of
what is mentioned.

Ed..

I have spoken to Kennedy's education aide in Boston. I've also spoken to a 
staffer for the committee in Washington. While they couldn't be specific at
the moment I was assured that the bill is nowhere near ready for a vote. I
will be getting a return call, probably on Monday, from Washington with more
details. 
It is clearly apparent to me that no one, either in Kennedy's office, or on
the education committee staff, thought there was anything in this bill with a
prayer of passage that was controversial. They just didn't have their act 
together. Usually when you call Senator or Congressman's office about 
controversial legislation you get a canned response. I didn't. And they
really didn't know alot about this bill. 

One has to remember that many bills are filed and few are chosen....

    There is a number in D.C. you can call to get a copy of any bill
    introduced in the House or Senate.  For a bill in the Senate, you need
    the SB number, Which would be 2 in this case.  For a bill in the House,
    it would be the HR number.
    
    I don't remember the number, but I did use it a few years ago to get a
    copy of an HR and it showed up, free of charge, at my house.
    
    Bob

   A little more info... a friend of mine was able to talk with an aide
   on Friday about this (in Kennedy's office in D.C., I believe) - it
   seems that this bill is currently "in conference".  Apparently this
   means that the House and Senate are working out differences between 2
   different versions of this bill.  It is supposed to be finished
   tomorrow (Tuesday), and then it will be up for vote after that.  I
   don't have the aide's name with me, but if anybody wants to follow up
   on this, send me mail, and I'll get the name for you.  They are
   working towards an early October date for recess, so I expect that
   means it will be up for vote fairly shortly (within the next couple of
   weeks, I'd guess).
   
   - Tom

Well I will certainly admit to being more than a little bit confused.  But
most of what I read in .1 sounded like a bill to promote education of parents.

I can understand somebody not wanting their taxes being increaced to finance
yet another federally funded program.  But other than financial objections, what
is wrong with a program to educate parents on the merits of positive discipline,
appropriate means for securing firearms and other dangerious objects, and 
positive approaches to handling family stress?

What am I missing?

    RE -.1
    
     What you are missing is that such "education" (not a word I'd have
    chosen) should be voluntary. Besides,any parent would feel threatened
    by legislation that has the potential for the termination of their
    parental rights and the removal of their child(ren) from their care.
    
    Gil

The Early Start program already provides for parent education. I've refrained
so far from making comments without having the bill in front of me but I must
reiterate that the message that appears here is NOT the bill in question but the
interpretation of someone who is opposed to it. Try not to read too much into
it.

I support a more than voluntary parent education program in certain cases. 
Especially in teenage parents. Especially in cases where some of form of
neglect or abuse may have been detected. I believe that these types of 
programs help to prevent the second fear expressed by the writer - loss
of parental rights. I believe that D.S.S. should have the right to remove
a child if the social worker feels that child is in danger. A child who is
in danger from his/her parents has no protection other than the government.
I reread the diatribe and as I looked at the list of categories involved it
occured to me that this is a list of people I would identify as eligible for
certain federal aid programs. It could be that the author was simply reading
a list of those eligible to have the federal government foot the bill.

I posted this in the FLYING notes file a few years ago...
    
    Bob
             <<< VMSZOO::DISK$NOTES:[NOTES$LIBRARY]FLYING.NOTE;2 >>>
                             -< General Aviation >-
================================================================================
Note 3027.0       Phone # to get a copy of a U.S. Congress bill       No replies
FSDB00::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow!"    12 lines  20-APR-1990 09:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I couldn't find a generic phone number topic, so maybe we need one.
    
    Anyway, as we are all aware, the U.S. Congress is getting more and more
    invovled in making laws concerning aviation.  There is a number you can
    call and get copies of bills introduced in the House, and I suspect one
    for the Senate too, but I don't know what it is.  There is no charge to
    get a copy of a bill other than the phone call to order it.  This
    number connects you with the House Documents Room.  To get a copy of a
    bill, you need to know it's H.R. (House Resolution) number.  The number
    is (202)225-3456.
    
    Tooslow
    

    I just called the number listed in the previous reply and they let me
    have the number for the Senate Document room:
    
    	(202) 224-7860
    
     Unfortunately, the man who answered at that number informed me that
    they do not take phone requests for documents anymore. They use the
    mail and will send out the documents the same day as they receive the
    requests.
    
      The address is:
    
    Senate Documentation Room
    Hart Senate Office Building
    Room B04
    Washington, DC 20510
    
      There is no charge for the documents. They limit you to 6 documents
    per day, 1 copy each. And you must send them a gummed return address
    label.
    
     They do have S-2 on file and suggest also receiving Senate Report
    102-43, a report filed along with the bill.
    
    I'll be requesting a copy.
    
    Gil

    re: .24
    
    Is it just the Senate that won't accept phone orders, or both the House
    and Senate?
    
    Bob

re: .22

> I've refrained so far from making comments without having 
> the bill in front of me but I must reiterate that the 
> message that appears here is NOT the bill in question but 
> th interpretation of someone who is opposed to it. Try not 
> to read too much into it.

I was hoping the actual text would be more easily available.  Given the 
length and general tenor of .1, the fact it starts out "fellow activists," 
and the fact that it is a forward from a distribution list, I agree with the 
above statement. 

Before you oppose a piece of legislation, be sure that you know -- from other
than an unfamiliar source -- what you are opposing.  Until I see at least 
some of the actual text, I will make no judgments, and I suggest that 
everyone else do the same.

This could be legitimate, or could be similar to the stories of the Equal 
Rights Amendment mandating unisex rest rooms.

Clay  
 

An earlier reply mentioned that social workers should have the power to remove
children if the SOCIAL WORKER feels the child is in danger.  I diagree with
this strongly.  I don't believe a child should be able to be removed from
a household without a court order.  This would eliminate the power of the
social worker as an individual.  Rather than one santimonious social worker,
who may be fresh out of college (with no family experience), having the power
to say that they don't like your owning firearms (and therefore the child is
in danger) and remove your children, the courts (who should be more impartial)
would make an informed decision with due process being provided to the parents.

I don't like the way it works where a social worker can put parents through
the third degree and the parents have no say at all.

As for the methods of punishment, etc.  I think that a parent knows best
what works for a child.  My mother gave us spankings once in a while.  Does
that mean that she abused us?  If anyone ever told me that, I would blast
them up, down, and sideways.  I don't believe, personally, that much is gained
by berating a child - it only hurts their self esteem.  However, I don't
believe I have the right to legislate that a parent cannot do this.  There were
other things that I disagreed with.

I don't see any need for the government to be passing any bills that would
require new spending.  We are running a national debt in the trillions of
dollars.  Where do all of you wonderful, liberal, democrats expect to get
more money?  If you wish to pay for it personally, then go ahead (and make
the law only apply to yourselves).  However, I happen to feel that this kind
of infringement into our lives is at the least unneeded, and the worst a major
government intrusion into our lives.

Sorry for rambling, but I do feel strongly on the issue of government mandates,
especially as it applies to families.

Ed..