The following is a press release sent out by the Parents National Network, PO Box 428, Palm Desert, CA 92261, on September 28, 1999. The school-based clinics are part of goal one of Goals 2000—every child shall come to school on the first day and every day thereafter ready to learn. Health care clinics will not only appear in schools in California, but are appearing in schools all across the United States as schools are transformed from institutions of learning to the hub of the community — the community learning center where all the needs of the human resource unit (worker) will be met in accordance with the interests of the state.

Parents Protest California School Health Clinic Bill

Sacramento, California — Over two thousand parents converged on the California's State Capitol on Monday. Furious over the legislature’s passage of Assemblywoman Susan Davis’ (D-San Diego) controversial bill, AB 1363 — the school health clinic bill — parents traveled from all over California, some from as far away as San Diego, to protest the bill and urge Gov. Gray Davis to veto it.

This unusual grassroots uprising was the result of angry parents, and groups such as the Parents National Network (PNN), Soccer Moms with a Brain, Common Sense Activism and the Capitol Resource Institute (CRI), who met each other through the Internet. Frustrated at their inability to stop the bill in the legislature, this diverse group decided to take action and quickly joined forces. They exchanged phone numbers, arranged conference calls and planned a statewide protest that gained national support — all in eleven days.

Their last minute grassroots rally quickly drew state, and national, attention when radio stations up and down the state, as well as the popular radio talk show host, Dr. Laura Schlesinger, promoted the rally.

What made these parents angry? Ms. Davis’ attempt to dramatically increase the number of health clinics located on school campuses and the expansion of the types of services offered.

As the Associated Press recently reported, "the typical school health center deals with scissors accidents, routine eye exams, and measles shots." However, if Gov. Gray Davis signs AB 1363, California’s school health clinics will soon provide "comprehensive" primary and mental health services to children. These services will include: prescribing and dispensing drugs, mental health assessment, pelvic exams, diagnosing and treating sexually transmitted diseases, prescribing, dispensing and referring children for birth control, treatment for substance abuse, weight control, even acne. You name it; the new clinics will offer it.

Think all this sounds like a good idea? Wait — there’s a catch.

The bill also says that each health care provider (clinic) may establish their own "parental consent policy in accordance with state law."

Does that give parents the right to determine their own children’s health care?

Maybe — but maybe not. To better understand this misleading provision, a quick review of current law is required.

Sue Stokka, former school board member for 12 years, says: "In California, schools now allow children 12 years and up to sign themselves up for mental health counseling and apply for Medi-Cal to pay for the services. Once students are signed up, parents no longer have the right to review their children’s medical records. In other words, no on will tell them anything about what the student is being treated for, his progress or lack thereof."

Children can also sign themselves up for "confidential" medical services. The only requirement the State of California imposes on districts who decide to adopt this policy is that they must notify parents once each academic year of their parental consent policy.

How many parents pay any attention to all those "beginning-of-the-year notices"? If they had looked, they may have seen a statement similar to this one from Ft. Bragg: "You have the right as a parent: To be informed that school authorities may excuse your child from school for the purpose of obtaining confidential medical services without your consent."

Karen Holgate, president of PNN, says, "Quite simply, this law tells California parents: You have the right to be told you have no rights!"

Davis’ bill also gives students the right to be involved in the decisionmaking process for their own treatment but says that every effort should be made to involve parents as long as it is "age appropriate" and has the consent of the student.

Natalie Williams, vice-president of CRI, and an attorney, questions Davis’ intentions. "Is this the ‘parental consent’ law Davis says gives parents the right to determine their children’s health care? I certainly don’t see any guarantees or protections for the rights of parents in this bill," says Williams.

The opportunity for wide-scale abuse is staggering. Parents are already complaining about the abuse in current school practices. For example:

• In California: Twelve 3rd graders were sent to the school psychologist. After being asked numerous personal questions about their families, the children were told not to talk to anyone outside the classroom about the "counseling group."
• In California: Parents who gave permission for an educational aptitude test for their 4th grade twin daughters were shocked when the girls told them they were grilled about possible sexual abuse and whether their parents yelled.
• In California: A single mom learned her 7th grade son had been seeing a school psychologist for six weeks. The school labeled him at-risk because she was divorced. In the note, her son told her he hadn’t realized he was such a "burden" until the counselor told him. She found him several hours later wandering the streets in the dark — crying.

Dr. Jane Anderson, pediatrician, is concerned about the quality (or lack of quality) of care. She says, "This bill allows children to consent to medical care and depends on children to provide accurate medical information to the school … Although the child’s primary doctor may be informed or asked to supply information, there are many loopholes which would allow schools to treat children without obtaining past medical information." She’s right; the bill does not "require" that a clinic check with the child’s family physician or pediatrician before treating the child.

Ms. Davis claims the bill does not force children to use the clinic services. She’s right. However, what she doesn’t tell parents, is that under her bill, students are to be "encouraged" to use their services and the school clinics are to be "user friendly" and must be open during classroom hours to best accommodate students.

"This bill will allow children, whose parents conscientiously drop them off at the school house steps in the morning and pick them up in the afternoon, to participate in unlimited medical and/or mental health services during classroom hours without mom or dad ever finding out," says Holgate.

One final note about parental consent "policy."

During the hearings for this bill, Sen. Ray Haynes (R-Riverside) asked Ms. Davis to consider adding an amendment that would have required parental permission for each individual visit at the clinic. Davis refused. This means that if a parent signs a permission slip that allows the school health clinic to give his/her child a basic physical for PE, the clinic will be able to use that one time permission form to administer any other health services that they, or the child, determine to be necessary.

With all the personal information that clinics will be gathering on children and families, Davis tried to address the issue of maintaining the confidentiality of student records. However, the bill language acknowledges that clinics may need to maintain some records in "a higher degree of confidentiality." Apparently "confidential" doesn’t really mean "confidential." The bill also gives clinics the power to decide who shall have access to the records and gives kids (not parents) the authority to approve or disapprove their release.

Dr. Steve Kossor, psychologist, makes a good point about the confidentiality of mental health services as outlined in AB 1363. "The basic problem is this: no legislator in his/her right mind would take a walk down the hall to visit the Capitol Psychologist to work out a personal problem — they’ll seek a private relationship with an independent practitioner — and there is no reason to short-change children just because it’s convenient."

No wonder parents are angry.

It will be interesting to see if Gov. Davis lives up to his campaign promise about working hard to increase parents’ involvement in their children’s lives. Will he now sign away their most basic right to decide health care of their own children? or will he protect those rights by vetoing AB 1363?

We’ll know by Oct. 10 — the deadline for him to either veto this bill, sign it, or allow it to become law through no action on his part.

The big question is: What will the Governor do?

╪