Watch out for "Big Sister" as Well as "Big Brother"

March 10, 1999 by:  Phyllis Schlafly

Are the American people willing to allow government agents to come
into their homes to "advise" them how to care for their babies? What
if the announced purpose of these home visits is to look for child
abuse under the assumption that all parents are suspects?

The plan to place "home visitors" into the homes of all first-time
parents is one more example of the pervasive liberal push to monitor
law-abiding citizens under the pretext of catching criminals. The
model for universal home visitation is Healthy Families America
(HFA), a program developed by the National Committee for the
Prevention of Child Abuse (NCPCA), now known as Prevent Child
Abuse America.

The HFA program calls for 50+ in-home visits annually per family for
those considered most "at risk." The home visitors are
paraprofessionals and volunteers who are called "trained," but may
have only a high school education.

These recruits are supposed to educate parents on "proper parenting
practices" and to monitor child development. NCPCA materials make
it clear that parents should never spank their children, and state that
"no child needs a spanking, spanking can be dangerous."

The agency's contact with the family may be initiated before the
mother gives birth and continues through age five. The home visitor
links the families to other health and social services until the child
enters school.

HFA claims to be voluntary, but the NCPCA's stated goal is "to
provide home visiting services to all new parents." Special attention is
given to those deemed to be "at risk."

The Alabama Family Alliance, which is working on an investigative
report on home visitation programs, found that a family's level of risk
is determined by screening the hospital, and sometimes even clinic,
records on 15 risk factors. The long list of risk factors includes the
age of the mother, divorce, late prenatal care, previous abortions, and
depression, and some of the terms are so nebulous that almost any
parent could be labelled "at risk."

It is unlikely that all the women being screened have given "informed
consent" to this government monitoring. Some consent forms are
part of hospital admission procedures and are easily misunderstood,
and most expectant mothers are in labor when they enter the
hospital.

The fact that assessment workers (who have reviewed the mother's
medical records) possess intimate information about the women they
are soliciting makes the "voluntary" nature of the program suspect.

Last October, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) wrote a Dear Colleague letter
to other House Members warning that HFA "sets a dangerous
precedent" and represents "the village mentality run wild." He
described the program as "Big Brother intervention as we have never
seen it before," noting that "Americans have never experienced such
intrusion in their family lives."

In 1992, NCPCA adopted Hawaii's "Healthy Start" program as the
national model for child abuse prevention, and HFA programs are
currently operating in 40 states under various names. Nearly 60
percent of all new mothers in Hawaii are screened for potential risk.

Vermont's HFA program plan states that "the purpose of home visits
is to assess the family's needs and to evaluate the family for child
abuse potential." It is not difficult to imagine that many parents might
be labeled "at risk" due to the home visitor's inexperience,
inadequate training, or overzealousness.

Indiana's HFA program has grown from a quarter million dollars five
years ago to $40 million today, with 58 sites in 91 counties, and HFA
literature makes it clear that the goal is "all families." Indiana's sites
use electronic data collection systems that gather an extensive array
of client data.

Rep. Hyde's letter notes that all HFA program data will be kept in a
nationwide computerized tracking system called the Program
Information Management System (PIMS), and could eventually be
combined with preschool and public school tracking systems when
children enter the education system.

According to Dianna Lightfoot, Director of the Alabama Alliance's
medical division and of the HFA study: "while any abuse of a child is
abhorrent, the 'crisis' of millions and millions of children being abused
and neglected, for which the radical 'cure' of in-home visitation to all
new parents is needed, is greatly exaggerated."

HFA is partially funded by the "Safe and Stable Families" program,
which was reauthorized in 1997 under the federal Adoption and Safe
Families Act. HFA is seeking additional funding sources, including
reimbursements from managed care organizations.

Since HFA programs are marketed as prevention and
cost-containment measures, based on the claim that they prevent a
host of future abuse-related problems, the HMOs are listening.

Another possible source of funding is Medicaid. According to one
NCPCA report on funding programs, "The definition of 'at risk' in
Medicaid is so broad that it should easily include home visitation."

Americans should examine the grave implications of the NCPCA's
social engineering before Healthy Families America is mandated
nationwide. HFA seriously threatens the right of parents to direct the
upbringing of their own children.

                                Phyllis Schlafly column 3-10-99

***************************************************************
Purchase Eagle Forum materials at our new on-line store!
http://www.eagleforum.org/order/
***************************************************************

Eagle Forum              http://www.eagleforum.org
PO Box 618                eagle@eagleforum.org
Alton, IL  62002         Phone: 618-462-5415
            Fax: 618-462-8909
---------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to Eagle E-mail
please e-mail  eagle@eagleforum.org
with SUBSCRIBE in the subject line
---------------------------------------------------------------