Paving the Way to Pediatric Health Care Capture in New Jersey
Paving the Way to Pediatric Health Care Capture in New Jersey
S3156 is just one piece of pathological puzzle
In another nod to agenda-first legislation, New Jersey Democrats have advanced S3156 - a bill that “permits boards of education to lease certain school property to federally qualified health centers without bidding” - through the Senate.
While it may sound perfectly practical, the bill can incentivize schools in need of funding to opt into a larger agenda that they likely know little about. And there are currently many schools in serious need of funding. Schools that have suffered budget cuts are not likely to bite the hand that offers to feed them. School-based health centers are sold to them as a win-win solution for everyone. Given that, how many school boards will stop and consider the potential problems?
How many people are even aware of them?
While there is merit to providing health services to the underserved, a preoccupation with removing “barriers to care” eclipses issues regarding informed consent, parental consent, surveillance, patient privacy and even the necessity/appropriateness of some of the services that are offered to children.
You can read more about the concerns around SBHCs here.
Selling out our schools
It wouldn’t be the first time local boards have unwittingly compromised the wellbeing of children by leasing school property. Parents in Wanaque, NJ, learned this the hard way when they were confronted with T-Mobile’s plans to erect a cell tower next to Lakeland Regional High School. They discovered that T-Mobile had been paying rent to the High School since 2009 and their planning board had approved an Application for a cell tower on the property in 2010.
The Wanaque situation mirrors a growing national trend of corporate giants like T-Mobile targeting small towns with limited resources, where communities are ill-equipped to resist their advances. This case underscores the urgent need for greater oversight and protection of local interests in the face of corporate influence.
(Fortunately, the community recently scored a big win as they convinced the Planning Board to vote against the placement of the tower. The battle is likely not over, but it’s a big step forward.)
Unfortunately, situations like these are becoming increasingly common.
According to Children’s Health Defense:
Telecommunications companies are targeting school properties as prime locations for installing cell towers, antennas and other wireless infrastructure — and many schools are taking the bait, said attorney Robert Berg…
“The school board members think it’s easy money,” Berg said. The school leaders rent out bits of school property to the wireless companies — such as a small site next to an athletic field or space on the school roof — for a monthly fee.
Many times school leaders have “no idea what they’re doing.”
“They lock themselves into bad contracts that can last for decades, at below market rate terms,” Berg said. “Meanwhile, the cell towers are irradiating all the kids, the staff and the teachers the entire school day, along with the surrounding neighbors 24/7.”
Parents frequently don’t learn of the deal until after it’s been signed — and then it’s too late, he said.
Are we about to face similar blindsiding with School Based Health-Centers?
Monday’s Senate hearing offers us an important clue:
Senator Pennacchio proposed an amendment that would require parental consent for medical consultations and services provided for children at school.
"Parents have an absolute right to determine what is or isn’t in their child’s best interest. That right must be guaranteed. The amendment I propose would require parental consent for and medical consultation or service directed at a child at school."
Tellingly, this amendment was rejected.
Do you ever wonder why so many of our legislators and public health authorities are so deaf to all of our stated needs and wishes as they simultaneously (and aggressively) push their other agendas “for the greater good”?
Do they believe we don’t know what’s good for us (while they advocate for our children making health care decisions for themselves)?
There’s something profoundly condescending about what is happening throughout our government and regulatory agencies. This is why it’s so important that we look beyond the stated purposes of legislation/regulation and start connecting dots.
School Based Health Care or Captive Audience Health Care?
While the American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC and the School Based Health Alliance all sing the praises of SBHC’s, the public is largely unaware of them. And most of the people who are aware are gravely concerned.
Like many government agendas, SBHCs are marketed to the public as providing access, equity and convenience. But to those who have been watching this situation evolve, SBHCs are a way of circumventing public health’s most inconvenient obstacles: parents and informed consent.
The American Academy of Pediatrics explains it this way:
SBHCs increase adolescent use of health care. Many teenagers, especially male teenagers, are reluctant to seek health care in a traditional medical setting because of cost, confidentiality concerns, and parental involvement.18–20 By providing convenient and confidential care in a familiar setting with supportive staff, SBHCs reduce barriers to care for adolescents, particularly in the areas of sexual and reproductive health, substance use, and mental health issues. *emphasis mine
From the CDC:
School health programs can provide critical information about and access to vaccinations. School health providers might also be able to leverage community partners and relationships with families to increase vaccination coverage. *emphasis mine
It should come as no surprise then that Merck is behind the National School-Based Health Alliance Toolkit To Increase Well-Child Visits And Vaccinations In School-Aged Youth.
From the toolkit:
Healthcare providers and schools can form new partnerships to support healthcare for the school community, explicitly providing immunizations and well-child visits to students.
It is essential to communicate with and gain the support of school principals and other school leaders to facilitate program implementation, increase student participation, and lead to more successful school-based immunization and well-child visit clinics.
The National School-Based Health Alliance developed this toolkit in collaboration with our valued partners: The National Association of School Nurses (NASN) and The School Superintendents Associations (AASA)… We also gratefully acknowledge the Merck Company Foundation for providing the financial support for this project.
To be clear, the government is not going to make a big announcement about its intentions to override parental consent as they counsel and medicate your children. Their agendas creep in, bill by bill, one small precedent at a time. I have compared it in the past to sneaking in a bomb - benign part by benign part - so the threat goes through undetected.
It’s important to keep this in mind as you review proposed legislation. We need to learn to read between the lines and view each bill as a piece of a bigger puzzle.
S3156/A4381: A Puzzle Piece
S3156 is rather typical in it’s skirting of the primary issue as it sets up a foundation for a larger agenda. It’s a sidestep that, among other things, assumes that federally qualified health centers belong in schools.
Are School-Based Health Centers the will of the people? There’s no evidence to suggest this. (Perhaps this is why the introduction of S3156 was abrupt and quiet.)
Are they the will of government agencies? Based on the funding allotted to them, I’d say yes. School-based health care is big business. A cursory search turned up these grants:
In May 2022, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) awarded nearly $25 million to improve access to school-based health services by supporting local partnerships between schools and health centers.
In September 2022, the HHS announced $47.6 million for new grant opportunities for school-based mental health programs.
In October 2022, HHS invested nearly $27 million in pediatric mental health care, including $3.2 million to the School-Based Health Alliance, the University of Texas, and the American Academy of Pediatrics for “technical assistance to grantees”.
In January 2023, – The New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) was awarded a five-year $14 million federal grant to expand school-based mental health services for students.
In August 2023, NJ allotted $43 million for a program that aims to offer more mental health services to more students.
In September 2023, the HHS, through the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), awarded $55 million to expand access to mental health care for young people, including “$25 million to 77 HRSA-funded health centers to create new and expand existing school-based health centers, which for the first-time includes support for these school health centers to provide mental health services in schools.”
In January 2024, thanks to the The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), the HHS announced another $50 million in grants that would enable 20 states to receive up to $2.5 million in funding to implement and expand the use of school-based health services through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
In February 2024, the U.S. Department of Education awarded more than $188 million to grantees in over 30 states to increase access to school-based mental health services.
There’s money to be made provided grantees honor the funding requirements.
Rutgers gets a piece of that pie… of course.
Under the guidance and expertise of the Rutgers University Center for Comprehensive School Mental Health, the 50 selected schools will receive intensive training on implementing evidence-based practices and strategies to strengthen mental health support services. While mental-health based services historically may have been handled individually on a case-by-case basis in some districts, the initiative aims to provide school communities with a comprehensive schoolwide system to better identify and address mental health concerns.
Yes, this Rutgers…
And this Rutgers…
And this Rutgers…
Also notice the emphasis on mental health. Which brings us to another puzzle piece…
Puzzle Piece 2: NJ S1188/2874 lowers the age of consent
S1188 is a bill that lowers the age at which minors can consent to behavioral health care treatment from 16 to 14. It’s an updated version of an existing law that reduced the age of consent to 16.
A Teen Vogue story described the original version of the bill this way:
The new law specifically targets teens contemplating suicide, because many kids are afraid to tell their parents that they’re depressed or having suicidal thoughts. LGBT teens who may not have come out to their families and kids growing up in households where mental health issues aren’t culturally accepted can now seek treatment they were previously barred from.
It’s hard to imagine a reason to oppose the bill when you put it that way. But there are other ways to look at legislation like this.
There’s a reason so many people showed up to make public comments to oppose the bill. Many New Jerseyans have been paying attention and see how S1188 fits into a bigger picture: one in which parents are increasingly framed as a threat to the wellbeing of their own children.
It’s telling that the same legislature that was willing to pass a bill that would allow minors of any age (until then Governor Christie intervened) to receive mental health treatment without parental consent refused to support S2100, which “declares the rights of a parent to be fundamental and not subject to infringement by the State absent compelling need.” This bill died in committee repeatedly.
And then, of course, there’s the matter of New Jersey’s approach to mental health. This is the state that tried to impose Policy 5756, which is designed to protect LGBTQ++ students… particularly from their parents, on school districts. This is a state that believes children are safer in the hands of the state.
Puzzle Piece 3: NJ may expand vaccine requirements
New Jersey’s Public Health Council is expected to release revisions of New Jersey Administrative Code Title 8 Chapter 57, which covers School Immunization Requirements, Communicable Diseases and related topics. Last year the NJDOH proposed policy changes that would align school immunization requirements with current ACIP (Advisory Committee on Vaccine Practices) requirements.
If accepted, these changes could place future decision-making around New Jersey’s school vaccination requirements in the hands of the CDC’s ACIP committee and remove the role of legislative process. Based on the current ACIP schedule, this revision would immediately add COVID, Influenza, and HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) vaccines as requirements for school attendance. Given the vast number of new vaccines in development, our school children could potentially be subject to an ever-growing vaccination schedule. Changes could also broaden access to private health information.
We know SBHCs seek to expand vaccination coverage.
Puzzle Piece 4: Contraceptives without prescriptions
On Monday, Governor Murphy issued a statewide standing order allowing pharmacists to provide hormonal contraception without a prescription. This is, of course, all in the name of “Reproductive Freedom” despite the fact that this new rule removes a safeguard for endocrine disrupting chemicals with known risks.
I don’t yet know how this could impact School-Based Health Clinics, but we know that one of the goals is to “reduce barriers to care for adolescents, particularly in the areas of sexual and reproductive health.”
Puzzle Piece 5: NJ is a safe haven for gender-affirming health care
New Jersey’s Executive Order 326 “establishes New Jersey as a safe haven for gender-affirming health care.”
Under EO 326, all State departments and agencies are directed to protect all people, including health care professionals and patients, against potential repercussions resulting from providing, receiving, assisting in providing or receiving, seeking, or traveling to New Jersey to obtain gender-affirming health care services.
We know from Policy 5756, that the state advocates for keeping things between kids and school district personnel.
School district personnel should have an open, but confidential discussion with the student to ascertain the student’s preference on matters such as chosen name, chosen pronoun to use, and parental communications…
Schools are advised to work with the student to create an appropriate confidentiality plan regarding the student’s transgender or transitioning status.
Puzzle Piece 6: Abortions for minors
Minors can get abortions in New Jersey.
So circling back to permitting boards of education to lease school property to federally qualified health centers…
How many school boards will unwittingly walk children into this dark medical pipeline simply by leasing school property? And we haven’t even gotten to the “without bidding” part.
The bigger picture is not looking good in NJ.
Defeat politician Dr. Herb Conaway running for Congress from NJ. He LOVES it when children have to get more vaccines. He's a VACCINE MONSTER!!!
"... Calling the proposed bill a "recipe for disaster" that could result in the spread of disease, Conaway opposed legislation proposed by Assemblywoman Charlotte Vandervalk that would give parents the right to exclude their children from mandatory vaccinations, after hearings held in March 2011 by the Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee.[9] In 2019, Conaway supported legislation eliminating religious exemptions from mandatory vaccination requirements for students to be eligible to attend school.[10] ..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Conaway#New_Jersey_Assembly
I'd choose ANYONE but Herb Conaway.
As a NJ resident, I am well aware of politician Herb Conaway and his LOVE and WORSHIP of vaccines.
When there is proposed legislation to require that children be required to get more and more vaccines, politician Herb Conaway is always ready to vote "YES" for any new vaccine mandate for children.
He has often been a sponsor of, and advocate for, MANY vaccine bills for a couple of decades now if not even longer. (Translation = Big Pharma shill)
He has been in office FAR TOO LONG now since 2003 or possibly even since 1997. Politician Herb Conaway is a great argument in favor of TERM LIMITS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Conaway#District_7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Conaway
https://drrimatruthreports.substack.com/p/babble-babble-balderdash-this-is
Government teaching children about government has no business in education, period. Let parents decide.
Abortions should never be government funded. Using unwilling tax payer's money is armed robbery.
This is a decision made by the woman and her mate, their family, if they care to share this miracle with them... and perhaps with their clergy. In the best case, it may be legal, but totally private. In the worse case it may be illegal and poor folks will have to resort to the hanger approach. In all cases, government should have no say on the subject. Fuzz