Friday, December 6, 2019

URGENT — What Should We Do About S 2680?

Home Forums Organizing for Social Change URGENT — What Should We Do About S 2680?

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #84917
    oldhead
    Participant

    Kayla just posted something very important from Senator Chris Murphy’s local paper — due to the incoming Republican congress Democrats who sponsored Bill S 2680 are rushing to get the bill passed right now. We need to discuss how we want to approach this. http://fairfield.dailyvoice.com/politics/sen-murphy-put-mental-health-bill-on-last-train-before-trump/690524/

    People should be considering a tactical issue: Whether to let S2680 pass as the “lesser evil” in hopes that the original Murphy bill with AOT (HR 4626) will then fall by the wayside, or actively work to defeat it.

    It’s a legitimate concern. Problem is, the Senate bill is in the long run more dangerous, as it seeks to formalize the official union of real health and metaphorical (“mental”) health, and paves the way for “early intervention,” i.e. drugging, of pre-schoolers in an effort “to get to them early” at the first sign of non-conformity. It also sets shrink-determined standards for what constitutes a “peer.”

    On the other hand, the Senate bill doesn’t include AOT. If it doesn’t pass we’ll still have to mobilize a major effort to defeat the original “Murphy,” which still contains AOT and is still hanging around waiting for a Senate vote of approval. I favor working hard to defeat them both, except for the fact that almost no one here seems to give a shit. (People even post negative “predictions” about “what will happen” with Murphy, seemingly oblivious to the reality that they could be a factor in “what happens.”)

    At any rate, maybe we can get some kind of strategy/tactics session going between now and whenever people return from the holiday weekend. I expect at least a couple people to rejoin these discussions at that point; others can be reminded as part of relevant commentary on the home page.
    Meanwhile I’ll be bringing relevant past threads back to the top FYI.

    • This topic was modified 3 years ago by oldhead.
    • This topic was modified 3 years ago by oldhead.
    • This topic was modified 3 years ago by oldhead.
    #84950
    oldhead
    Participant

    [From Kayla’s post in another thread]:

    one of my baddest fears is they’re a package deal. That’s how it seems anyways. Tim Murphy seemed to talk like it was. I’s honeslty harder to really find what the bill does. The ones pushing it are mostly saying to vote yes, or tell your senators yes.
    However I thought I heard Tim saying he wanted to get some of the things he had to “comprise” for the democrats” in bills like the one in senate.

    There are TWO “Murphy” bills. The original (HR 4626), sponsored by Tim Murphy, contains AOT, and has been passed by the House but not by the Senate. The other, S 2680, has been introduced by CHRIS Murphy et al. in the Senate but not voted on. The one you posted the news article about is the Senate bill.

    The Senate bill does not include AOT but Murphy and others would like to amend it so that it does, that’s probably what you’re referring to there. Also, a good bit of the bill is printed in the Phil Hickey article: https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/09/the-mental-health-reform-act-of-2016-sb-2680-would-be-a-huge-step-backwards/ If you’re reading a copy w/stuff crossed out that’s the deleted part, keep scrolling and you’ll probably find the revised, current portion.

    Some “consumers” have been taking the (so-called) lesser-of-2-evils approach because of the lack of AOT in the Senate bill; however I have always considered this short-sighted. I am nonetheless raising the issue again in light of the election, and the somewhat different circumstances relating to the power balance in congress. (And for the record, neither party is “on our side,” not by a long shot.) I still favor opposing both bills, but people should be aware of what’s at stake both ways.

    PS Could you elaborate on the Torrey “question & answer” session thing you mentioned? I’m not familiar w/this but it sounds interesting.

    #84962
    kayla
    Participant

    Thanks for the link. I read it. Phil Hickey does a great job, but it’s tough not having access to actual proposals ‘helps people fall through the cracks’ ‘evidence based treatment. He sums it up well, and helps interpret some of the vague stuff. However I do like to keep up to date with any modifications, for when I’m speaking on the bill. However, that artical is what I use as a general guide for what’s in the bill.

    It’s also frustrating that the people who need to hear what he’s saying the most wouldn’t listen.they’lol buy “…ensure that programs provide, as appropriate, access to effective and evidence-based prevention, diagnosis, intervention, treatment, and recovery services…”

    Not hear out “Proven, scientific approach” means more pharma-funded psychiatric research, with ever more opportunities for over-stated conclusions and ever more opportunities for over-stated conclusions and even out-and-fraud

    The “Q and A” is the post I made a while back, about about a supposed open conference call with Pete Earley. These are all the relevant links.

    Forum I Did On Call W/ DJ Jaffe and Pete

    The Blog They Advertised It “>Blog Where They Advertised It

    The Recording Of Call

    I was muted a lot, and perhaps would’ve said more if I knew how bad it would be, but was also trying to keep the conversation going. Also wanted to get in the right questions. Pete Eaely was mostly talking, and DJ Jaffee was mostly muting, and directing… I think. I probably would’ve interrupted Pete a bit more, but maybe it looked better who knows. They may not’ve posted it, or made me out to be obnoxious. At the end I did interrupt, but it was obvious I wad being shut out. Although I just wonder if I still could’ve gotten in more to challenge them. If it would’ve been better if they tried to flip it around on me, or better if they just didn’t post it.

    #85013
    oldhead
    Participant

    Are you in touch with TAC/Jaffe/Murphy-related websites, Facebook pages, etc. about their plans re S2680? (AA was keeping tabs on Jaffe for while, don’t know about currently, haven’t heard.)

    The people who have been the most consistently active in these discussions so far — BetterLife, Surviving & Thriving, AA and a few others — will hopefully be back soon; this is an important matter so we can only hope more will join.

    So what’s your opinion on what approach anti-psychiatry people should take towards the Senate bill (S2680)?

    #85042

    Not sure what’s going on with S2680, but there’s an urgent update on Hr2646. It has been revised to include HR6 (haven’t heard of this) and senate will vote next week. See Tim Murphy’s press release (https://murphy.house.gov/latest-news/breaking-helping-families-in-mental-health-crisis-act-language-finalized-full-vote-to-take-place-next-week/). Per DJ Jaffe’s blog (https://mentalillnesspolicyorg.blogspot.com/2016/11/senate-agrees-to-pass-lame-duck-mental_24.html), it is not too clear exactly what is in this bill (probably AOT).

    Sorry for my long absence. Been having trouble typing without pain (thank you iatrogenic neuropathy), but I’m following along.

    #85060
    kayla
    Participant

    Will write soon. Have been researching an attempt to retrieve some information, bills that include some of old version like AOT while back. I think I recall Tim Murphy, and Pete Early discussing revision. Pete Earey has been very involved in this as far as keeping up, and explaining revisions. Natasha Tracy is where I found out about the Q and A, and keeps up a lot with stuff too. Other than that from what I saw, it’s mostly just ‘advocates’ saying why we need these bills\laws, but Natasha, and Pete may be the only other people I’d add.

    Doing research I also Pete writing about how some Republicans want to prevent the bill from being passed, till Trump is elected, to hopefully pass the “less watered down version”. However, both parties are supposedly worried about what Trump will do, and it’s a gamble either way.

    #85065
    oldhead
    Participant

    Hi S&T, we’ve been here before, huh?

    EVERYONE — LOOKS LIKE THIS IS IT! They want to “lame-duck” some version of Murphy, probably the “consumer advocates” are predictably on “holiday” and won’t get paid to deal with this till Monday, which is what the Murphys are counting on. Cowards that they are, they always announce this sort of shit on a holiday weekend when no one is watching.

    Call your Senators, tell your friends, talk about this in postings here & elsewhere. They may have cobbled something together, insist it not be passed without full discussion.

    More info on the way asap. Thanks, S&T (and Kayla).

    • This reply was modified 3 years ago by oldhead.
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • The forum ‘Organizing for Social Change’ is closed to new topics and replies.