[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 110 (Monday, July 23, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1299]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RECOGNIZING THE CITIZEN'S COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
_____
HON. DAN BURTON
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Monday, July 23, 2012
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to commend the
Citizen's Commission on Human Rights on the opening of their new
National Public Affairs Office here in Washington, DC.
I want to thank my friend Sam Brunelli, the President and CEO of Team
Builders International, for the role he played in bringing the good
work of the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights to my attention. Since
1969, the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights has tirelessly worked to
educate the public about the dangers of some drugs. As part of this
effort, CCHR has been at the forefront of the debate over whether
parents' have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see
fit; and that includes making decisions about evaluation and treatment
of mental health conditions.
As some of my colleagues may recall, back in 2003 a Presidential
Commission recommended that the government implement mental health
screening in public school. The Commission contended that early
detection, assessment, and links with treatment and support programs
would help prevent mental health problems from worsening. However,
neither the Commission's report nor any related mental health screening
proposal under discussion at the time required active parental consent
before a child was subjected to mental health screening.
I appreciate the value of having mental health problems diagnosed and
treated early, but cutting the parents out of the process was deeply
troubling to me. More often than not, the typical course of action when
a child is diagnosed with a mental health condition--typically
Attention Deficit Disorder, ADD, or Attention Deficit Hyperactive
Disorder, ADHD, is to prescribe a powerful psychotropic drug, such as
Ritalin. But these drugs have some serious side effects which include
mania, violence and dependence. In fact, these drugs are so potentially
dangerous that in 2007, under pressure from members of Congress and
groups like CCHR, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, was
finally compelled to require that the makers of all antidepressant
medications update their black box warning on their products' labeling
to include warnings about increased risks of suicidal thinking and
behavior, known as suicidality.
Yet, inexplicably, not only were parents being cut out of the loop
with regard to these drugs, parents who were informed, and who wanted
to say no, were actually being threatened by school districts with
child abuse charges for not drugging their children.
As a Christian, parent and grandparent, I have throughout my
Congressional career staunchly defended the right of parents to direct
the upbringing of their children as they see fit. I believe this right
is embedded in the U.S. Constitution, affirmed by Supreme Court case
precedent, and exemplary of the inalienable rights and freedoms this
country was founded on. To deny parents the right to know about the
potential dangers of these drugs and the right to say ``no, this is not
the right treatment for my child,'' is simply mindboggling. This is the
same flawed mentality that condones putting toxic substances like
mercury in medical products like vaccines and dental fillings and then
not telling people the mercury is in there. Mercury is the most toxic
substances on earth after radioactive materials. It has no place in any
medication for children or adults; and I'm proud of the work I've done
in Congress to get mercury removed from medicine. I'm also proud to
have worked with CCHR and other like-minded groups to raise awareness
of the potential dangers of psychotropic drugs, and to fight to put
parents back in charge of their children's health care decisions
instead of government bureaucrats.
Unfortunately, the price of defending our freedoms from the intrusion
of big government is to be eternally vigilant. The economic and
political life of America has changed profoundly over the last four
years, and once again, the government is trying to intrude upon the
relationship of parent to child.
In the past, parents were threatened by government officials with
child abuse charges if they resisted efforts to drug their children
with ADHD medications. Today, parents are penalized by government for
sending their children to school with a brownbag lunch that does not
meet some arbitrary government nutritional guidelines. These may seem
like widely separate things but they are at the most basic level the
same; an usurpation by the government of the right of parents to make
decisions for their children.
Under the rubric of ``Children's Rights,'' advocate of big government
are pushing the argument that children should have, and the state
should recognize, greater autonomy for children from their parents in
deciding how to live, or that government agencies must have the power
to step in to protect children from ``bad parents.''
I believe this concept of ``Children's Rights'' is flawed for two
reasons. First, parents possess the maturity, experience, and capacity
for judgment required for making life's difficult decisions that
children lack. Second, as the Supreme Court said in the case of Parham
v. JR.19 simply ``because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to
a child or because it involves risks, does not automatically transfer
the power to make that decision''--nor in my opinion should it--``from
the parents to some agency or officer of the state.''
In his Oval Office farewell address, President Ronald Reagan said two
things that are particularly relevant to our discussion tonight; he
said: ``As government expands, liberty contracts;'' and that ``All
great change in America begins at the dinner table.''
President Reagan understood that family is the foundation of our
society; and that parents do have a profound impact on their children.
If we are to recapture a common denominator of right and wrong in
America, we must begin in the homes of America with conversations at
the dinner table between moms and dads and growing children.
By respecting and defending a parents' fundamental right to teach
their children that there is acceptable behavior and unacceptable
behavior, appropriate speech and inappropriate speech we can re-instill
in our children a moral character of trust, honesty, respect and
tolerance, qualities that are so necessary to having safe and
prosperous communities--and which are at the core of CCHR's own
philosophy.
Make no mistake, though, stopping the further spread of government
power in the area of the family and ensuring that parental rights are
protected with the strength and certainty they deserve will not be a
quick and easy victory. That is why organizations like CCHR are so
important. If good people like the men and women who work for CCHR
refuse to give up the fight, victory is inevitable.
Again, I want to commend CCHR on the opening of their beautiful new
facility here in Washington, DC and wish them good fortune in their
future endeavors.
____________________