Facebook Pixel

Brooke Shields Supports The Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act

By Expert HERWriter
Rate This

Nearly two years ago, on May 11th, 2007, at the invitation of U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, actress and author Brooke Shields came to Washington DC to share her postpartum experience and urge Congress to pass The Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act. Her compelling testimony helped further awaken our nation to the reality of pregnancy related mood disorders and the need for action NOW.

She was joined that day by U. S. Senator Robert Menendez, Congressman Bobby L. Rush, Former NJ First Lady Mary Jo Codey, Carol Blocker – Melanie Blocker Stokes mother – Sylvia Lasalandra and myself in a press conference encouraging every stakeholder - every mother, father, sister, friend, family member, loved one, Congressman and health care professional - to support this life saving bill.

After reaching out to Brooke's camp to inform her of the bill’s progress, Ms. Shields still strongly supports the passage of The Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act. Here is a quote from Ms. Shields:

"I wish I had known, (been) informed in some way, but nobody said anything to me about postpartum depression. The knowledge of PPD is a tool that I believe all women deserve, and this bill represents that tool and it's an easy gift to give women everywhere. I urge Congress to pay attention and finally listen and not let postpartum depression go undiagnosed and untreated. There's research that needs to be done. Postpartum depression is a disease that, like any other disease, we would want to inform people of and offer treatment and research for. Now is the time to pass this bill ."

- Brooke Shields

On March 30, 2009, thanks to the efforts of Congressman Bobby L. Rush, the MBSMA passed in the U.S. House of Representatives with nearly unanimous bipartisan support and now awaits consideration in the U.S. Senate H.E.L.P. committee. Ms. Shields hopes you will add your voice to hers and the thousands of women, infants, families, advocates and healthcare providers who want postpartum depression legislation passed THIS YEAR.

Add a Comment6 Comments

EmpowHER Guest

Thanks for the information. I'll write my senator.

April 29, 2009 - 11:33am
EmpowHER Guest

This is UnConstitutional! There are other options besides forced interrogations and forced medications. Not to mention there will be no recourse available to those that are injured or killed at the hands of our BIG GOVERNMENT. Say NO, NO, NO to this Orwellian bill! Menendez (NJ Senate) and the other congressional sponsors of this bill will have undoubtedly made out well financially in some way. Big pharma lobbyists love to line their coffers. Why else would this bill make any logical sense? NJ forces preschoolers to get the flu vaccine, that's on top of the 455 doses already required to enter the government run school system! I am in charge of my own body and that of my children. It seems that the ELECTED government servants who swore to uphold the Constitution have forgotten just how that is done! We the people must spread this far and wide to educate others and call your elected officials! To get a greater understanding of the damage this bill will bring to all citizens and links to take action, go here: NaturalNews

April 19, 2009 - 7:31am
EmpowHER Guest

The preceding misleading comments have no relevance to this bill which neither violates informed consent, mandates ANY form of mental health screening or subsidizes medication. While the minority opposed to the legislation are hoping you will not read the actual bill and draw your own conclusions, please do read the bill to become familiar with the wonderful programs and life saving services S 324 The Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act would fund for new mothers, infants and families. Then use the above listing of HELP committee members to call and express your support! You can read the bill, find a listing of national professional and non profit endorsers and state by state constituent supporters at www.perinatalpro.com/ppdlegislation.html

Thank you!

April 19, 2009 - 5:13am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to Anonymous)

Response to: Anonymous on April 19, 2009 - 5:13am

1. The Secretary of Health and Human Services,
is appointed by the prez since Health and Human Services is an Administrative Agency, created by the Executive Branch. Ergo, the Secretary answers only to the prez and not to the public. Congress is "mandating" the Secretary here, to do several things, that's
what Statutory Laws do, they "mandate" (stuff). It will be the sole responsibility of the Secretary to write policies (rules) that will require public and private health care providers to follow. These will also be "mandates". Hard to imagine that the "majority" would desire
the Act since it is clearly unknown what policies the Secretary will enact in detail.
Subpart I of part D of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 330G the following: `SEC. 330G-1. SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS WITH A POSTPARTUM CONDITION AND THEIR FAMILIES.
(b)...The Secretary may allow such projects to include the following:
(1) Delivering or enhancing outpatient and home-based health and support services, including case management and comprehensive treatment services for individuals with or at risk for postpartum conditions...
2. Notice the word (may) above. This is a legal definition and actually means as used here, as a command, such as (shall). This too is a "mandate" for the Secretary to follow.
Notice the word (include) also above. This too is a legal definition that means to ONLY include items immediately after the word include. Yes, another "mandate".
3. Notice the term (at risk) above. Can someone say Pandora's Box?
Just being pregnant makes you at risk. Just being a woman makes you at risk.
(a) Study- The Secretary shall conduct a study on the benefits of screening for postpartum conditions.
4. Hmmm, another "mandate".
Notice the word (screening). How does one screen? By asking questions,
ergo a questionaire. Which is part of a medical treatment and cannot be forced upon a woman, it is unconstitutional. And yet, the "majority" do not care about unconstitutional acts, just sweep it away, it's okay, its really good for you.
And we are going to do it whether you like it or not.
Who cares about the "minority", when it is clear, that the "majority"
is obviously smarter and more intelligent, huh...


April 19, 2009 - 11:54am
EmpowHER Guest

This is shameful and unconscionable that this act would ever be CONSIDERED much less PASSED?!? How DARE you Ms. Stone presume to support an act wherein a beaurocrat would determine a mother's mental health status with NO training based upon an arbitrary questionnaire and hold their CHILD hostage! This act MUST be squashed in committee. Contact these Sentators on the HELP committee and demand this unconstitutional act be immediately voted down.
Lisa Murkowski, R: 202-224-6665, AK

John McCain, R: 202-224-2235, AZ

Christopher Dodd, D: 202-224-2823, CT

Johnny Isakson, R: 202-224-3643, GA

Tom Harkin, D: 202-224-3254, IA

Pat Roberts, R: 202-224-4774, KS

Edward Kennedy D: 202-224-4543, MA

Barbara Mikulski D: 202-224-4654, MD

Richard Burr, R: 202-224-3154, NC

Kay Hagan, D: 202-224-6342, NC

Judd Gregg, R: 202-224-3324, NH

Jeff Bingaman, D: 202-224-5521, NM

Sherrod Brown, D 202-224-2315, OH

Tom Coburn, R 202-224-5754, OK

Jeff Merkley, D 202-224-3753, OR

Bob Casey, D 202-224-6324, PA

Jack Reed, D 202-224-4642, RI

Lamar Alexander R 202-224-4944, TN

Orrin Hatch R 202-224-5251, UT

Bernard Sanders, I: 202-224-5141, VT

Patty Murray, D, 202-224-2621, WA

Michael Enzi, R, 202-224-3424, WY

April 17, 2009 - 10:06am
EmpowHER Guest

This Bill is not only UnConstitutional prima facia, it also is hiding behind a more un American plot, to wit being labeled as mentally ill.
which means under Federal Statute you shall not own a firearm or possess one.
Thank you Republican Congress and Bill Clinton.

The “questionaire” that a woman would have to answer, prior to taking her PROPERTY home, is ilegal due to an (ARBITRARY) judgement by the state. In other words, there was no (DUE PROCESS of LAW) to take away the property of the woman. ONLY a court of law can determined whether the child (property) will be (safe) for a woman to take home. And the courts will have NO jurisdiction over this matter at all. Even if the courts in the several states, by state statutes give authority to the courts, the courts still will not possess a constitutional authority to adjudicate the matter. Why? Because there has been (NO HARM DONE).
And of course, Americans have a 5th Amendment Right to (not self incriminate).
Furthermore, a “questionaire”, is part of a (MEDICAL TREATMENT) under Common Law, ergo Constitutional Law, and a patient may refuse this treatment under same.


April 16, 2009 - 10:58pm
Enter the characters shown in the image.
By submitting this form, you agree to EmpowHER's terms of service and privacy policy
Add a Comment

We value and respect our HERWriters' experiences, but everyone is different. Many of our writers are speaking from personal experience, and what's worked for them may not work for you. Their articles are not a substitute for medical advice, although we hope you can gain knowledge from their insight.

Postpartum Depression

Get Email Updates

Postpartum Depression Guide

Have a question? We're here to help. Ask the Community.


Health Newsletter

Receive the latest and greatest in women's health and wellness from EmpowHER - for free!