I need some help for a conversion

[Platondas]

I've been working very hard trying to convert my parents to Ron Paul, supporters, both of them could easily afford the 2300$ donation, and my mom was actually an elected official in our town and has a quite a bit of political influence.

I've pretty much sold her on Ron Paul, but I have one problem, shes a member of an obscure Christian sect called "Christian Science" and wont support anyone who wouldn't allow her freedom of religion, specifically in regard to health care, as Christian Scientists do not support the use of medicine.

Anyhow, what I really need but have not been able to find is a quote of Ron Paul saying that hes ok with Christian Scientists not taking their children to hospitals when they are sick. I think anything that covered either alternative health care or freedom of religion would do but I am not haven't seen any quotes specifically on the topic. I was wondering if anyone could help.

thanks in advance

[dsentell]

Dr. Paul definitely believes that we have the right to alternative health care as well as freedom of religion. I have no sources available, but will see what I can find . . .

[hillertexas]

Ron Paul would support their freedom of religion. In fact, he is against mandated immunizations for children. He also wants to limit the FDA to allow people to medicated themselves how they see fit (including no medicine at all)
I'll look for a quote for you.
What candidate do they currently support?

[hillertexas]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-freedom/

"Americans are justifiably concerned over the government’s escalating intervention into their freedom to choose what they eat and how they take care of their health.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in order to comply with standards dictated by supra-national organizations such as the UN‘s World Food Code (CODEX), NAFTA, and CAFTA, has been assuming greater control over nutrients, vitamins and natural health care providers to restrict your right to choose the manner in which you manage your health and nutritional needs.

I have been the national leader in preserving Health Freedom.

I have introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act, HR 2117, to ensure Americans can receive truthful health information about supplements and natural remedies.

I support the Access to Medical Treatment Act, H.R. 2717, which expands the ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments.

I oppose legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements

I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations."

[Platondas]

They are both still undecided, what i really need is a quote from him saying it, I've told her a hundred times I, but she wants to hear it from him.

[hillertexas]

you want a quote that says specifically something like "it's ok if you don't want to take your child to a hospital"?

[Platondas]

either that or something very strong on religious freedom

[dsentell]

Article about the Health Freedom Protection Act -- reintroduced by Ron Paul:

(NOTE THAT IT WAS FIRST INTRODUCED BY RON PAUL IN NOVEMBER OF 2005 -- SEE POST BELOW, THEN IN 2007 RON PAUL REINTRODUCED THE BILL)

http://www.citizens.org/action-alerts/take-action-now-health-freedom-protection-act-reintroduced



Take Action Now: Health Freedom Protection Act Reintroduced
Take Action: Support H.R. 2117

Washington, May 2, 2007 - The Coalition to End FDA and FTC Censorship reports that Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) has reintroduced the Health Freedom Protection Act, H.R. 2117.

The Food and Drug Administration prohibits with an absolute prior restraint every claim in the market that a nutrient treats a disease. It is, for example, illegal for you to be told in the market that prune juice treats constipation; that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate treat osteoarthritis; that omega-3 fatty acids reduce the risk of sudden death heart attack; or that folic acid reduces the risk of alzheimer's disease. Each of those claims is demonstrably true, yet prohibited by the FDA.

Why does the FDA ban speech that can heal and save lives?

It reserves to the pharmaceutical industry the right to make claims about therapeutic effects, ensuring that drug companies have a monopoly on the making of such claims and the economic rewards that come from them. The rights violation carries with it loss of health and sometimes life. It also causes consumers who might well find an ailment treatable with inexpensive and non-toxic dietary elements to perceive costly and side effect laden drugs as their only alternative.

For example:

FDA's ban on the claim that folic acid reduces the risk of neural tube defects contributed to 2,500 preventable neural tube defect births in America each year the ban remained in place;
FDA's ban on the glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate claim contributes to twenty million Americans pain and suffering associated with osteoarthritis;
FDA's ban on the omega-3/sudden death heart attack claim contributes to approximately 100,000 preventable sudden death heart attacks each year.
It is a lie that foods and elements in foods lack therapeutic effects. Many dietary ingredients have such effects. Telling the truth about those effects in the market can land you in jail.

The Federal Trade Commission prosecutes parties who make advertising claims about the effects of foods and nutrients on the body. It does not limit those prosecutions to parties that actually deceive consumers. It also does not limit those prosecutions to products that fail to perform as advertised. The FTC has refused to define an objective standard of review that would constrain its power to those cases in which ads actually deceive. Instead, it exercises broad, unbridled discretion in charging and condemning parties as deceptive advertisers. Moreover, no one in this country should be held by the government to be a deceptive advertiser unless the government proves that consumers have in fact been deceived.

H.R. 2117, the Health Freedom Protection Act, will end FDA and FTC censorship. Public support for the bill is critical. This is your chance to let Congress know you will not sit back while agencies of your federal government take your freedoms away!

[dsentell]

Ron Paul - Speech before House on Introduction of Health Protection Freedom ActNovember 10, 2005

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr111005.htm



Free Speech and Dietary Supplements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Freedom Protection Act. This bill restores the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements by codifying the First Amendment standards used by federal courts to strike down the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) efforts to censor truthful health claims. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) from censoring truthful health care claims.

The American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers’ efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents’ comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumer access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four federal court decisions vindicating consumers’ First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.

FDA bureaucrats have even refused to abide by the DSHEA section allowing the public to have access to scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against diseases by claiming that every article concerning this topic is evidence of intent to sell a drug.

Because of the FDA’s censorship of truthful health claims, millions of Americans may suffer with diseases and other health care problems they may have avoided by using dietary supplements. For example, the FDA prohibited consumers from learning how folic acid reduces the risk of neural tube defects for four years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended every woman of childbearing age take folic acid supplements to reduce neural tube defects. This FDA action contributed to an estimated 10,000 cases of preventable neutral tube defects!

The FDA also continues to prohibit consumers from learning about the scientific evidence that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis; that omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of sudden death heart attack; and that calcium may reduce the risk of bone fractures.

The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal court’s suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease.
This legislation also addresses the FTC’s violations of the First Amendment. Under traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, the federal government bears the burden of proving an advertising statement false before censoring that statement. However, the FTC has reversed the standard in the case of dietary supplements by requiring supplement manufactures to satisfy an unobtainable standard of proof that their statement is true. The FTC’s standards are blocking innovation in the marketplace.

The Health Freedom Protection Act requires the government bear the burden of proving that speech could be censored. This is how it should be in a free, dynamic society. The bill also requires that the FTC warn parties that their advertising is false and give them a chance to correct their mistakes.

Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about putting people in charge of their health care, then shouldn’t we stop federal bureaucrats from preventing Americans from learning about simple ways to improve their health. I therefore call on my colleagues to stand up for good health care and the First Amendment by cosponsoring the Health Freedom Protection Act.

[hillertexas]

Mr. PAUL.: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation's citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech .....'' would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.

In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous "separation of church and state'' metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This "separation" doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!

The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.

As James Madison said, "There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation." I sincerely hope that my colleagues will fight against the "gradual and silent encroachment'' of the courts upon our nation's religious liberties by supporting this bill.

[bbachtung]

From September 30, 2007:



Congressional Control of Health Care is Dangerous for Children

This week Congress is again grasping for more control over the health of American children with the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Parents who think federally subsidized health care might be a good idea should be careful what they wish for.

Despite political rhetoric about a War on Drugs, federally-funded programs result in far more teenage drug use than the most successful pill pusher on the playground. These pills are given out as a result of dubious universal mental health screening programs for school children, supposedly directed toward finding mental disorders or suicidal tendencies. The use of antipsychotic medication in children has increased fivefold between 1995 and 2002. More than 2.5 million children are now taking these medications, and many children are taking multiple drugs at one time.

With universal mental health screening being implemented in schools, pharmaceutical companies stand to increase their customer base even more, and many parents are rightfully concerned. Opponents of one such program called TeenScreen, claim it wrongly diagnoses children as much as 84% of the time, often incorrectly labeling them, resulting in the assigning of medications that can be very damaging. While we are still awaiting evidence that there are benefits to mental health screening programs, evidence that these drugs actually cause violent psychotic episodes is mounting.

Many parents have very valid concerns about the drugs to which a child labeled as “suicidal” or “depressed,” or even ADHD, could be subjected. Of further concern is the subjectivity of diagnosis of mental health disorders. The symptoms of ADHD are strikingly similar to indications that a child is gifted, and bored in an unchallenging classroom. In fact, these programs, and many of the syndromes they attempt to screen for, are highly questionable. Parents are wise to question them.

As it stands now, parental consent is required for these screening programs, but in some cases mere passive consent is legal. Passive consent is obtained when a parent receives a consent form and fails to object to the screening. In other words, failure to reply is considered affirmative consent. In fact, TeenScreen advocates incorporating their program into the curriculum as a way to by-pass any consent requirement. These universal, or mandatory, screening programs being called for by TeenScreen and the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health should be resisted.

Consent must be express, written, voluntary and informed. Programs that refuse to give parents this amount of respect, should not receive federal funding. Moreover, parents should not be pressured into screening or drugging their children with the threat that not doing so constitutes child abuse or neglect. My bill, The Parental Consent Act of 2007 is aimed at stopping federal funding of these programs.

We don’t need a village, a bureaucrat, or the pharmaceutical industry raising our children. That’s what parents need to be doing.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=955

[hillertexas]

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=203

Ron Paul: Last week, a divided Supreme Court declined to hear a potentially landmark case that has tremendous significance to religious believers in this country. The small town of Elkhart, Indiana, has a granite stone inscribed with the Ten Commandments in front of a city building. Predictably, the ACLU brought a lawsuit against the city seeking to have the decades-old stone removed. City officials fought the case in federal court, but lost at the appellate level. Although Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas disagreed, the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case and let the ruling stand. The fate of the stone now lies with a lower federal judge, who undoubtedly will order it removed despite the wishes of Elkhart city officials and local residents. Ironically, the same Ten Commandments deemed so objectionable by the ACLU are depicted in the very Supreme Court building where the decision not to consider the Elkhart case was made! How tragic that our courts have accepted the myth that religious beliefs cannot be represented in any public setting, even when religious symbolism adorns courthouses across the country.
The First amendment (or any other constitutional provision) must be strictly construed to reflect the intent of the Founding Fathers. The language is clear- Congress simply is prohibited from passing laws establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any "separation of church and state", although Supreme Court jurisprudence over the decades constantly asserts this mystical doctrine. Sadly, the application of this faulty doctrine by judges and lawmakers consistently results in violations of the free exercise clause. Rulings and laws separating citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings simply restrict religious practices. Our Founders clearly never intended an America where citizens nonsensically are forced to disregard their deeply held beliefs in public life. The religious freedom required by the Constitution should not end the moment one enters a school, courtroom, or city hall.
Moreover, there is ample evidence that most of our Founders were deeply religious men who never imagined a rigid separation between religious beliefs and governance. Indeed, our national documents, symbols, currency, and buildings are replete with religious symbolism. Our national motto, "In God We Trust," is an obvious example. These symbols are entirely inconsistent with the religion-free government supposedly mandated by the First amendment.
The Supreme Court also has ignored the obvious point that the amendment applies only to Congress, and not to the states. This means that while the federal government cannot pass laws restricting religion or use federal funds to give preference to one religion over another, state and local governments retain the right under the 10th Amendment to set their own policies regarding religious expression. The Elkhart case is a classic example of the courts ignoring this fundamental distinction between federal and local action. Bluntly, the use of Elkhart city government property is none of the federal government's business. Yet respect for state rights and enumerated powers, not to mention the property rights of the citizens of Elkhart, is nonexistent in our federal courts. The unchallenged assumption is that the federal courts have jurisdiction over all religious matters.
The sad result of this misinterpretation of the Constitution is a legal and political landscape which is unnecessarily hostile to religion. Popular culture and media mirror this hostility in their inaccurate and unflattering portrayals of religious conservatives and fundamentalists. The message is always the same: conservatives want to force their religious beliefs upon society. The truth is that secular humanists have forced their beliefs upon a largely religious nation. In schools, in government, and in the courts, secular values dominate. Secularism, wrongly characterized as neutral toward religious faith, has become the default philosophy for our society. The Supreme Court, by refusing to consider the Elkhart case, has furthered the cause of those who wish to see religion eliminated from American life.

[user]

Wow, I don't agree with her religious views but this should be the easiest sale ever. Ron Paul is the only candidate she should be happy with. Definitely show her the anti-forced vaccination quote.

[dsentell]

Wow, I don't agree with her religious views but this should be the easiest sale ever.

That is what I was thinking . . . :D

[terryhamel]

You likely won't find Ron Paul advocating anything for a group because he isn't for groups - he is for individual choice, for liberty. Check the Ron Paul Library in the health care section (http://ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=22)for all the ammo you need.