Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

The State Is Coming After Your Babies: Pre-K Act (HR 3289) And Education Begins at Home Act (HR 2343). AND THEY ARE BIPARTISAN RELIGIOUS RIGHT!

Posted by Job on July 24, 2008

By Chelsea Schilling © 2008 WorldNetDaily

The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to debate two bills that could give the federalgovernment unprecedented control over the way parents raise their children – even providing funds for state workers to come into homes and screen babies for emotional and developmental problems.

The Pre-K Act (HR 3289) and the Education Begins at Home Act (HR 2343) are two bills geared toward military and families who fall below state poverty lines. The measures are said to be a way to prevent child abuse, close the achievement gap in education between poor and minority infants versus middle-class children and evaluate babies younger than 5 for medical conditions.

‘Education Begins at Home Act’ – HR 2343

HR 2343 is sponsored by Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., and cosponsored by 55 Democrats and 11 Republicans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing the Education Begins at Home Act would cost taxpayers $190 million for state home visiting plus “such sums as may be necessary” for in-hospital parent education.

While the bill may appear to be well-intentioned, Pediatrician Karen Effrem told WND government provisions in HR 2343 to evaluate children for developmental problems go too far.

“The federal definition of developmental screening for special education also includes what they call socioemotional screening, which is Mental healthscreening,” Effrem said. “Mental health screening is very subjective no matter what age you do it. Obviously it is incredibly subjective when we are talking about very young children.”

While the program may not be mandatory for low-income and military families, there is no wording in the Education Begins at Home Act requiring parental permission for treatment or ongoing care once the family is enrolled – a point that leads some to ask where parental rights end and the government takes over. Also, critics ask how agents of the government plan to acquire private medical and financial records to offer the home visiting program.

“There’s no consent mentioned in the bill for any kind of screening – medical, health or developmental,” Effrem said. “There are privacy concerns because when home visitors come into the home they assess everything about the family: Their financial situation, social situation, parenting practices, everything. All of that is put into a database.”

Effrem said it does not specify whether parents are allowed to decline evaluations, drugs or treatment for their children once they are diagnosed with developmental or medical conditions.

“How free is someone who has been tagged as needing this program in the case of home visiting – like a military family or a poor family?” she asked. “How free are they to refuse? Even their refusal will be documented somewhere. There are plenty of instances where families have felt they can’t refuse because they would lose benefits, be accused of not being good parents or potentially have their children taken away.”

When WND asked Effrem how long state-diagnosed conditions would remain in a child’s permanent medical history, she responded:

“Forever. As far as I know, there isn’t any statute of limitations. The child’s record follows them through school and potentially college, employment and military service.”

Effrem said conflicts could also arise when parents do not agree with parenting standards of government home visitors.

“Who decides how cultural tolerance is going to be manifested?” she asked. “There’s some blather in the language of the bill about having cultural awareness of the differences in parenting practices, but it seems like that never applies to Christian parents.”

Providing Resources Early for Kids’

The Pre-K Act, or HR 3289, is sponsored by Rep. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, and cosponsored by 116 Democrats and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla. Estimated to cost $500 million for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013, the bill provides funds for state-approved education. Government workers would reach mothers and fathers in the hospital after a baby has been delivered to promote Pre-K programs.

“They give them information about Child Care Resource and Referral Network so they can get the child into a preschool or daycare that follows the state standards and get the mom working as quickly as possible,” she said. “It’s always that sort of thing: It’s a list of resources, it’s intruding on parental autonomy and authority and it’s not necessarily accurate or welcome information.”

While parents may choose to be involved in preschool programs, Effrem said the Pre-K Act poses similar concerns about government trumping parents’ rights.

“Once they are involved, they don’t have any say over curriculum,” she said. “There’s plenty of evidence of preschool curriculum that deals with issues that have nothing to do with a child’s academic development – like gender, gender identity, careers, environmentalism, multiculturalism, feminism and all of that – things that don’t amount to a hill of beans as far as a child learning how to read.”

Effrem said the Pre-K Act extends a “really messed-up K-12 system” to include even younger, more vulnerable children.

“This is an expansion of the federal government into education when there really is no constitutional provision for it to do so.”

*Note: concerned individuals must get on their knees and pray to Jesus Christ our salvation!

4 Responses to “The State Is Coming After Your Babies: Pre-K Act (HR 3289) And Education Begins at Home Act (HR 2343). AND THEY ARE BIPARTISAN RELIGIOUS RIGHT!”

  1. Polycarp said

    Job, my wife homeschools our children; therefore we are highly interested in something like this. I appreciate you bringing this to our attention.

  2. Once upon a time, even by man’s laws this sort of proposal was blatantly unconstitutional.

    And Thomas Sowell said, government can’t make good parents, but government obviously is going to try and be the parent.

    And in China the police can enter your house for most any reason. So I guess I should not be surprised America is headed for the same.

    Some “Rs” are on board, but seriously, this bill is Liberal to the core. One look at the bill’s cosponsors makes that way more than obvious.

  3. Devon said

    That’s what I keep saying IC…the R’s are far from perfect but they are multitudes better then the D’s…..

  4. Richard said

    You hit the nail on the head with regards to some of the privacy issues raised by this bill and highlighted in the article.

    However, the goal of the bill is simply to provide funding for state programs that are already in place. There is no part of this bill that has the federal government or its officials coming to your house or providing parenting instructions.

    Unfortunately, children of military families upon whom we rely to defend this great nation of ours, and children of impoverished families are generally at greater risk of suffering from child abuse and undiagnosed medical conditions which can hamper their development, hinder their education and perpetuate the cycle of poverty and ignorance.

    Fortunately, there exist state programs to provide assistance to the parents–predominantly the mothers who bear a disproportionately larger amount of the child-rearing responsibility than do their more affluent or non-military sisters.

    These state programs provide mothers with information on the health and well-being of their child, modeling, consulting and coaching in parenting practices and to recognize and seek help for issues related to health, developmental delays, and social, emotional, and behavioral skills.

    While you and I neither want nor need parenting advice from an external agency (including but not limited to our mother-in-laws), trust me, these programs provide great benefit for poorer families. I don’t know if you’ve experienced how poor people raise their children, but trust me, it isn’t pretty.

    The good news is that these programs are effective in helping the strength of the family and the health of the child–something liberals and conservatives can agree on. This according to a study published in the Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

    One such program is Nurse-Family Partnership which is described on none other than Laura Bush’s website http://www.helpingamericasyouth.gov/. Also note that in a majority of these programs, the person visiting the home is nurse–not Big Brother!

    After reading the description of this program, I ask you to please reconsider your opinion that federal funding for it would be wrong. If anything, please realize that this bill will benefity our military as well–while Daddy’s away defending our freedom, Mom could use a helping hand rasing Jr.–please help her out!

    Richard

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: