Good news. There is a bill pending in NYC that would make it mandatory for children to obtain a health certificate that shows they are psychologically fit to attend public school, most of the bill is below.
First, I couldn’t find that this bill has a co-sponsor so I doubt it will go anywhere but the point is that this is the kind of control of our lives some of our politicians want.
Second, if you think this isn’t problematic, look again at the mandatory parenting workshops that could become NY law. Are these two bills somehow connected or, at least, designed to work together to achieve an “it takes a village” child raising objective?
“We have recently heard a couple of the ruling class elites make the claim that not only do the children belong to the parents, but also to the community, and by the natural extension the government, so what better way to guarantee the children become what they consider to be useful eaters than by taking away the parents’ rights to raise their children the way they see fit by forcing them to comply with the government’s idea of how parents should raise their children?”
Is ensuring that a child’s psychological “fitness” meets state sanctioned standards a necessary component to making sure our children are being raised “right”? Why is there a BMI component in this bill that is supposed to be designed to keep our children safe from school gun violence? Is there another angle or agenda at play here? Will kids and/or their parents be deemed psychologically unfit if their BMI is too high? Will religious beliefs of the household or political affiliation of parents ever come in to play?
Will the psychologically unfit be deemed forever unfit or will simple reprograming in the form of mandatory workshops be all that’s required to fix the thousands of problem kids and parents that will undoubtedly be identified during the state approved evaluations?
Also, who will pay for the evaluations and subsequent treatment; taxpayers, citizens themselves? If it’s individual citizens, could this be considered a bad behavior tax? Could forcing a massive expense on people be a hidden means to grease the wheels of rehabilitation or punish willful non-compliance with approved parenting directives?
“OK, OK, we’ll turn in our guns and stop going to church…”
Suppose this is all about gun violence, does it stem from the same ideology that lead to President Obama considering rabidly anti-gun Dr. Vivek Murthy to be the next U.S. surgeon general?
“Dr. Murthy is the 36-year-old president and co-founder of Doctors for America, a group that advocates for Obamacare and gun control laws.
The group calls gun violence “a public health crisis.” It pushes for Congress to ban “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines and calls for spending tax dollars for more gun-control research.”
Is gun violence, although objectively bad, hardly an epidemic, really a public health crisis or is this about going after guns or people crazy enough to own them?
And why, this is possibly the most disturbing part, would any parent be OK with giving schools the authority to examine the health history of their children “at their discretion?”
Introduced by M. of A. MARKEY — read once and referred to the Committee
AN ACT to amend the education law, in relation to including psycholog-
ical screening for students in public schools as part of the required
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
1 Section 1. Subdivision 1 of section 903 of the education law, as sepa-
2 rately amended by chapter 281 and section 11 of part B of chapter 58 of
3 the laws of 2007, is amended to read as follows:
4 1. A health certificate shall be furnished by each student in the
5 public schools upon his or her entrance in such schools and upon his or
6 her entry into the grades prescribed by the commissioner in regulations,
7 provided that such regulations shall require such certificates at least
8 twice during the elementary grades and twice in the secondary grades. An
9 examination and health history of any child may be required by the local
10 school authorities at any time in their discretion to promote the
11 educational interests of such child. Each certificate shall be signed by a
12 duly licensed physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner, who
13 is authorized by law to practice in this state, and consistent with any
14 applicable written practice agreement, or by a duly licensed physician,
15 physician assistant, or nurse practitioner, who is authorized to,
16 practice in the jurisdiction in which the examination was given, provided
17 that the commissioner has determined that such jurisdiction has
18 standards of licensure and practice comparable to those of New York.
19 Each such certificate shall describe the condition of the student when
20 the examination was made, which shall not be more than twelve months
21 prior to the commencement of the school year in which the examination
22 is required, and shall state whether such student is in a fit condition
23 of health to permit his or her attendance at the public schools. EACH
24 SUCH CERTIFICATE SHALL ALSO STATE THAT A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION WAS
EXPLANATION–Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
A. 8186 2
1 PERFORMED AND THAT THE CHILD IS MENTALLY FIT TO PERMIT ATTENDANCE AT
2 SCHOOL. Each such certificate shall also state the student’s body mass
3 index (BMI) and weight status category. For purposes of this section,
4 BMI is computed as the weight in kilograms divided by the square of
5 height in meters or the weight in pounds divided by the square of
6 height in inches multiplied by a conversion factor of 703. Weight status
7 categories for children and adolescents shall be as defined by the
8 commissioner of health. In all school districts such physician,
9 physician assistant or nurse practitioner shall determine whether a
10 one-time test for sickle cell anemia is necessary or desirable and he
11 or she shall conduct such a test and the certificate shall state the results.
12 S 2. This act shall take effect on the first of July next succeeding
13 the date on which it shall have become a law.Follow @James_in_TX