Update on Teen Screen

All of the documents filed in the TeenScreen lawsuit can be found here: 
<http://www.psychsearch.net/teenscreen_lawsuit.html> 
www.psychsearch.net/teenscreen_lawsuit.html 

The last entry is from Teresa Rhoades' attorney (plaintiff) asking for a 
trial by jury "to be held as soon as is expeditiously available on the 
Court's calendar" 

The Rutherford Institute filed the lawsuit in federal court in Indiana 
on behalf of the Rhoades' family whose 15-year-old daughter, Chelsea 
Rhoades, was subjected to a mental health screening examination at her 
school without her parents' knowledge or consent and then was diagnosed 
with two mental "disorders". Institute attorneys charge that school 
officials violated Michael and Teresa Rhoades' constitutional right, as 
parents, to control the care, custody and upbringing of their daughter 
when Chelsea was subjected to TeenScreen withouth their knowledge or 
consent. 

Rutherford Institute 
No Child Left Undrugged 
By John W. Whitehead 
6/9/2008 

According to autopsy reports, 4-year-old Rebecca Riley died from an 
overdose of psychiatric drugs. At age 2, Rebecca was diagnosed with 
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). At 3, she was diagnosed 
with bipolar disorder, also known as manic depression. By the time she 
died on Dec. 13, 2006, little Rebecca was taking Clonidine, as well as 
the anti-convulsant Depakote and the anti-psychotic Seroquel. 

John Whitehead 

What were some of the symptoms that prompted such treatment plans? As 
her mother described it, Rebecca was "constantly getting into things, 
running around, not being able to settle down." 

Rebecca's diagnosis was not a medical aberration. Her 10-year-old 
brother and 4-year-old sister were already being treated for manic 
depression. Indeed, nearly one million children are reportedly diagnosed 

as bipolar, making it more common than autism and diabetes combined. 

From 1994 to 2003, the number of children treated for bipolar disorder

increased 40 percent, a jump that many experts attribute to more doctors 

aggressively applying the diagnosis. 

An increasing number of medical officials are voicing the concern that 
children are being misdiagnosed. Dr. John McClellan, who runs a 
children's psychiatric hospital in the state of Washington, suggested 
that the bipolar diagnosis has become a catch-all for aggressive and 
troubled children. 

Likewise, child psychiatrist John Holttum believes that the definition 
of bipolar disorder is expanding. Whereas children who were seen as 
troubled or irritable 10 or 15 years ago might have been treated with 
counseling, parental training for their caregivers or other social 
interventions, children with similar symptoms today are being diagnosed 
as bipolar and treated with medication. Unfortunately, for many 
families, therapy is not even an option. According to Dr. Michael Brody, 
a child psychiatrist at the University of Maryland, since insurance 
companies often do not support therapy, most parents opt for medication. 

Not surprisingly, the pharmaceutical companies are reaping the rewards, 
aided by the medical community and the media. Bipolar disorder 
medication is typically three to five times more expensive than 
medications prescribed for other disorders, such as depression or 
anxiety. As the News Tribune of Tacoma, Wash., points out, "Furthering 
the trend is extensive marketing of atypical anti-psychotics by the 
companies that make them, and media coverage of bipolar disorder as a 
childhood disease." 

Yet many of the anti-psychotic drugs being prescribed for children have 
not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use on them. 
Of the two that have been approved for children, Risperdahl and Abilify, 
they've only been approved for short-term use. Nevertheless, as the News 
Tribune points out, because these drugs have been approved for adults, 
"doctors are free to prescribe drugs to anyone and in any way they see 
fit once they have been approved for some purpose." 

What this means is that in addition to being misdiagnosed, there is an 
increased likelihood that children are also being overdrugged. Concern 
about this scenario has prompted Dr. Jeffrey Thompson, chief medical 
officer for the Washington state Medicaid program, to provide more 
stringent guidelines to ensure that anti-psychotic drugs are prescribed 
to Medicaid children only when truly needed and at proper dosages. 

While Thompson's actions signal a move in the right direction, at least 
for minor-aged Medicaid recipients in his state, it will do little to 
help children in private care and in other states. 

When confronted with the numbers of children being diagnosed with 
bipolar disorder-about 800,000 in 2003, and likely much higher now-it is 
hard to know how to respond. Could that many young people truly be 
suffering from this disorder? It is tempting to lay the blame on an 
over-zealous medical community or a greedy pharmaceutical industry. 
There is no doubt that they have benefited financially from the sharp 
rise in bipolar cases among young people. 

Is it more a case of kids just being kids-noisy, rambunctious, 
hyperactive, disorderly? Or is there something else going on here? 
Curiously, one study released in 2007 indicated that among children 
diagnosed with bipolar disorder, two-thirds of them were boys. 

While there are undeniably cases where children are actually suffering 
and are helped by diagnosis and medication, I have to wonder about the 
majority. Little is said in the studies I have read about the impact 
that family life and the environment may have on the behavior of 
children diagnosed as bipolar, or even ADHD, yet they can't be ruled 
out. 

Society as a whole has become irresponsible in its duty to young people. 
Obsessed with materialism, we have handed over our young people to 
marketing mavens and corporations eager to make a quick buck. Distracted 
by entertainment, we have relinquished our children to television 
babysitters, allowing them to become turned on by and tuned into 
mindless television programs, video games and advertising that promote 
violence and premarital sex, among other unhealthy behaviors. Children 
need human touch and love. All too often, parents give them over to 
others for care. They also leave them floating in the non-real world of 
virtual reality. 

Thus, it is little wonder that so many children are out of control, 
disorderly and unable to settle down. But they shouldn't be victimized 
and punished for our neglect. Nor should they be drugged into 
compliance. Our children are screaming for help, but we're not listening 
to what they're saying. Instead, many parents are just hoping to shut 
them up-whether with drugs or entertainment-and get a little peace and 
quiet. But that's not the answer. 

A solution will not be found by passing another law. Rather, it must 
start at home and in the community. When the family breaks down, 
everything breaks down. We need to start by re-building families. 
Parents need to be parents and stop over-scheduling their children. They 
need to start spending time with them. 

Finally, parents need to say no to drugs for their children. They need 
to control what their children watch and listen to. And they need to 
take off the headphones, turn off the cell phones and try communicating 
with their children. 

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and 
president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book The Change Manifesto 
(Sourcebooks) will be out in August 2008. 

  _____  

27,270 Signatures Against TeenScreen. Petition: 
<http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html> 
http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html Video: 
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfU9puZQKBY> 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfU9puZQKBY

Understanding the Contemporary Republican Party:

Authoritarians Have Taken Control

Part One in a Three-Part Series
By JOHN W. DEAN
<http://writ. news.findlaw. com/dean>----
Wednesday, Sep. 05, 2007

This is the first in a three- part series of columns in which FindLaw
columnist John Dean discusses his most recent book, Conservatives
Without Conscience
<http://www.amazon. com/exec/ obidos/ASIN/ 0143038869/ findlaw-20>. - Ed. /

Last year, I published Conservatives Without Conscience
<http://www.amazon. com/exec/ obidos/ASIN/ 0143038869/ findlaw-20>, but it
struck me as a bit too self-promoting to use this space to talk about
the book. The core of the book examines a half-century of empirical
studies that had never been explained for the general reader. Not being
a social scientist, I was thrilled when the book became a bestseller and
countless political and social psychologists wrote to thank me for
translating their work for the general reader.

At this point, I feel that this material is simply too crucial to
understanding current politics and government for me to continue to
ignore it in my columns for FindLaw. In addition, I want to refer to
these findings throughout my commentary on the 2008 presidential and
congressional elections, so it is time to set forth a few basics from
this work.

Conservatives Without Conscience
<http://www.amazon. com/exec/ obidos/ASIN/ 0143038869/ findlaw-20> ("_CWC_")
sought to understand the modern conservative movement, and in particular
it's hard turn to the right during the past two-and-a-half decades.
Conservatives have taken control of the Republican Party, and, in turn,
the GOP has taken control of the government (all three branches, until
2006).

Who are these people? Of course, we know their names: Jerry Falwell, Pat
Robertson, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Dick Cheney and George
W. Bush - to mention a few of the obvious. More importantly, what drives
them? And, why do their compliant followers seem to never question or
criticize them? Here, I am thinking of people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity, and Ann Coulter - to mention a few more of the conspicuous.

In this column, and those that follow, I hope to explain the rather
remarkably information I have uncovered. It explained what for me what I
had previously thought inexplicable. And based on my mail, it seems to
have done the same for a lot of _CWC_ readers. So let me see if I can
extract a few key points that may help to understand what happened, and
why it happened.

In the first two columns of this three-part series, I will offer some
basics to provide context, and some of the relevant data. In the last of
the three, I will drive home the points I believe are most relevant.

*How Conservatives Think (Or Fail To Do So)*

Most conservatives today do not believe that conservatism can or should
be defined. They claim that it not an ideology, but rather merely an
attitude. (I don't buy that, but that point is not relevant here.)

Conservatives once looked to the past for what it could teach about the
present and the future. Early conservatives were traditionalists or
libertarians, or a bit of both. Today, however, there are religious
conservatives, economic conservatives, social conservatives, cultural
conservatives, neoconservatives, traditional conservatives, and a number
of other factions.

Within these factions, there is a good amount of inconsistency and
variety, but the movement has long been held together through the power
of negative thinking. The glue of the movement is in its perceived
enemies. Conservatives once found a common concern with respect to their
excessive concern about communism (not that liberals and progressive
were not concerned as well, but they were neither paranoid nor willing
to mount witch hunts). When communism was no longer a threat, the
dysfunctional conservative movement rallied around its members' common
opposition to anything they perceived as liberal. (This was, in effect,
any point of view that differed from their own, whether it was liberal
or not.)

To understanding conservatives thinking, it is important to examine not
merely what conservatives believe, but also why they believe it. I found
the answers to these two key questions in the remarkable body of
empirical research work, almost a half-century in the making, undertaken
by political and social psychologists who study authoritarian personalities.

*Authoritarian Republicans: Understanding the Personality Type*

While not all conservatives are authoritarians, all highly authoritarian
personalities are political conservatives. To make the results of my
rather lengthy inquiry very short, I found that it was the
authoritarians who took control of the conservative movement in the
1980s, and then the Republican Party in the 1990s. Strikingly, these
conservative Republicans - though hardly known for their timidity --
have not attempted to refute my report, because that is not possible. It
is based on hard historical facts, which I set forth in considerable
detail.

Authoritarian control continues to this day, so it is important to
understand these people. There are two types of authoritarians: leaders
(the few) and followers (the many). Study of these personalities began
following World War II, when social psychologists asked how so many
people could compliantly follow an authoritarian leader like Adolf
Hitler and tolerate the Holocaust. Early research was based at the
University of California, Berkeley, and it focused primarily on
followers, culminating in the publication of a The Authoritarian
Personality
<http://www.amazon. com/exec/ obidos/ASIN/ B000OC36X2/ findlaw-20> (1950) -
a work that broadly described authoritarian personalities. The book was
quite popular for decades, but as the Cold War ended, it had been on the
shelf and ignored for a good while.

Given the strikingly conspicuous authoritarian nature of the
contemporary conservative movement, and in turn, of the Republican
Party, those familiar with the work of the Berkeley group thought it
time to take another look at this work. For example, Alan Wolfe, a
political science professor at Boston College, observed that the fact
that "the radical right has transformed itself from a marginal movement
to an influential sector of the contemporary Republican Party" called
for a reexamination of this work. That is exactly what I did, although I
did not discover Dr. Wolfe's call for it until well into my project.

_The Authoritarian Personality_ relied heavily on Freudian psychology,
which was not without critics, although neither Dr. Freud's work nor
that of the Berkeley scientists has been proven incorrect. The weakness
of this early work was the lack of empirical data backing up its
conclusions. But in the half-century since its publication, that
weakness has been removed, based on others' empirical work. A number of
researchers have examined and reexamined the Berkeley Group's
conclusions, and no one more thoroughly than Bob Altemeyer, a Yale and
Carnegie-Mellon- trained social psychologist based at the University of
Manitoba.

*Professor Altemeyer's Findings*

Altemeyer's study addressed flaws in the methodology and findings of
_The Authoritarian Personality_ , and he then proceeded to set this field
of study on new footings by clarifying the study of authoritarian
followers, people he calls "right-wing authoritarians. " The provocative
titles of his books -- Right-Wing Authoritarianism
<http://www.amazon. com/exec/ obidos/ASIN/ 0887551246/ findlaw-20> (1981),
_Enemies of Freedom_ (1988), and The Authoritarian Specter
<http://www.amazon. com/exec/ obidos/ASIN/ 0674053052/ findlaw-20> (1996) --
and of a few of his many articles found in scholarly journals -- such as
"Highly Dominating, Highly Authoritarian Personalities" in the /Journal
of Social Psychology /(2004) and "Why Do Religious Fundamentalists Tend
to Be Prejudiced?" in the /International Journal for the Psychology of
Religion /(2003)--indicate the tenor of his research and the range of
his interests.

Working my way through this material, with the help of a copy of the
_Idiot's Guide to Statistics_, for Altemeyer writes for professional
peers, I realized that, since I do not have a degree in psychology, I
should get guidance to be certain I understood the material correctly,
because it seemed to me that the information he had developed was
exactly what I needed to comprehend the personalities now dominating the
conservative movement and Republican Party. Altemeyer, who is the
preeminent researcher in the field, graciously agreed to tutor me in his
work. I introduced him to FindLaw readers in an earlier column, when I
thought it would be interesting to get his take
<http://writ. news.findlaw. com/dean/ 20061020. html> on the writings of the
very authoritarian Tom DeLay, as he explained himself in _No Retreat, No
Surrender_.

At the outset of _Conservatives Without Conscience_, I provided a quick
and highly incomplete summary of Altemeyer's findings, explaining that
his empirical testing revealed "that authoritarians are frequently
enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, anti-equality, highly prejudiced,
mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian, and amoral." To be clear,
these are not assessments that Altemeyer makes himself about these
people; rather, this is how those he has tested reveal themselves to be,
when being anonymously examined.

Altemeyer has tested literally tens of thousands of first-year college
students and their parents, along with others, including some fifteen
hundred American state legislators, over the course of some three
decades. He has tested in the South and North of the United States.
There is no database on authoritarians that even comes close in its
scope to that which he has created, and, more importantly, these studies
are empirical data, not partisan speculation.

About a year after I published my outline of his work, Altemeyer
prepared a digest of his research for general readers, The
Authoritarians <http://home. cc.umanitoba. ca/%7Ealtemey/>, which he has
posted online for one and all to examine at no cost. In his book he
walks readers thorough his research in a manner that requires neither an
advanced degree nor a copy of the _Idiot's Guide to Statistics._

In the next two columns, I will examine the implications of Altemeyer's
findings, for they explain a great deal about the operations of the
Republican Party as presently constituted.

End, Part One