https://council.concernedcompanions.com/clown

 

You can see for yourself everything I’m reviewing here at https://council.concernedcompanions.com/clown, again that’s council.concernedcompanions.com/clown

Last week I highlighted the poor and shortsighted decision to fund health clinics in our schools, near vulnerable and sometimes very confused kids who are incapable of the whole-of-life context required to make life-changing decisions. 

Here are some excerpts of that conversation. You can find all of this with pictures at concernedcompanions.com/clown.  I have obscured specific Council members and suggest you review the Council recording to determine what is and what is not truthful for yourself:  https://my.spokanecity.org/citycouncil/meetings/2023/08/28/legislative-meeting/

One Council member, who abstained from voting, vehemently tried to discredit what I had to say.

First off, it wouldn’t be a government funded thing, without violating its own rules; in this case, specifically the requirement to reclaim unused space (as opposed to vacating the faculty lounge):

 

 

And then comes the “don’t believe your lying eyes” claptrap; in this case framing my claims as “myths”:

 

After falsely maligning my claims as “myths”, the Council member spews false misinformation and disinformation, first saying parental consent is required,

 

kids can’t just “walk in”,

 

UPDATE: the 9/3/2023 edition of the Spokesman Review included this little tidbit from the capital project director at SPS, specifically calling them “walk-in clinics”:

 

 

 

and then malinformation by making the true claim that “all minor consent laws” are being followed, when the reality is those exact laws specifically prevent the clinic from informing the parents and preclude parental consent.

 

disgustingly, targeting “low income kids” is considered a high-point by this Council member,

 

who is “very supportive of this.”

 

Do you think ANY of the Council objected?  Sadly, not one nay vote…

 

After being publicly smeared by this Council member, I reached out for clarification.  I was directed to a person at CHAS, who provided this web URL:  https://chas.org/for-patients/minor-confidentiality/#minor-consent

I encourage everyone to go to this URL yourself to make your own determination if the smears the Council member made, saying I propogated "myths", are true or if the logarhea the Council member dumped on us all is misinformation, malinformation, and disinformation:

• “laws that permit minors (children under the age of 18) to consent or agree to certain types of healthcare services”

• “CHAS Health deactivates all portal accounts and text reminders for parents and guardians”

Which services are included:

• Birth control services

• Prenatal care

• Sexually transmitted diseases and infections

• Outpatient substance abuse treatment

• Behavioral health

In the “what does this mean to you as a parent” section:

“if your child consents to one of the above services on their own to comply with state law, CHAS Health will not be able to share information with you regarding those visits”

But don’t worry about not being able to pay the bills, because

“Parents will still be able to access billing information regarding your minor child”

And the coup-de-gras:

“Turning off access to portal accounts and text reminders applies to all patients ages 12 through 17 and does not mean that your child has received healthcare services without your knowledge.”

12...years...old...

Get that?  Withholding from you the knowledge that your child is receiving healthcare services does not mean that your child has received healthcare services without your knowledge!  I’d laugh if this isn’t the same kind of falsehoods that come out of many of our politicians’ mouths just about every time they open them.

And in the “what does this mean for me” section for students:

“CHAS Health will not share your healthcare information with anyone else unless you give CHAS Health permission”

 

SUMMARY:

So you tell me - if a Council member was telling you that it’s a “myth” and that “parental consent is required” and that “kids can’t just walk in”, would you consider those false statements even worse if that Council member worked at one of the schools in which a clinic will soon be opened, is a staunch advocate for the funding, and obviously knows what he or she said is false?  What motive would you ascribe to that Council member if he or she were especially eager to exclude low-income kids from the parental guidance so desperately needed at some of life’s most consequential moments for a confused teenager?  Do the words “systemic injustice” come to mind?  What about the word “groomer”?

 

https://council.concernedcompanions.com/clown