If I could, I would thankKirstie Alleypersonally. Hug her, even. Her over-the-top Twittering this week(@kirstiealley)has finally started to bring attention to the widely-spread false and misleading statements that have been made for months now about the Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act.

Some of Kirstie'sstatements on Twitter this week have included that the bill is "backed 100% by big pharma" andthat"The goal is to pre-screen pregnant mothers for depression. If they fit the bill, it is mandated treatment which is drugs. And for her baby."

I've always been a fan of Kirstie Alley, so this came as a disappointment to me. But I'd like to hope that she was just being misled, and didn't realize that the facts she was sharing with her 22,000-plus followers on Twitters were not, in fact, facts.

Websites that have taken notice and spoken up include About.com and the Daily Kos.

Daily Kos: "Kirstie Alley & Scientology Vs the MOTHERS Act"

"Nowhere does this bill suggest that women or their children will be forcibly drugged, but this is one of the fearmongering 'factual statements' put forth by Scientology, CCHR, and its celebrity mouthpieces like Kirstie Alley."

About.com: "No Mercy for Those Who Invent Facts"

"Kirstie Alley and Scientology's Citizens Commission on Human Rights are protesting The MOTHERS Act, which is meant to provide more information about postpartum depression to new and expectant mothers. It also pushes for greater research into the condition … This isn't an issue of mere misunderstanding. This is, at best, passing along rampant, unfounded, and unresearched rumor; at worst, deliberate misrepresentation."

Another site that I must admit I hadn't been aware of, until now, called Celebitchy, reported this:

"Alley is Twittering about all the bad things she believes will happen if the Mother’s Act is passed. This includes things like FORCING women and babies to take psychiatric drugs and squirting Prozac in babies’ eyes. Yes, she really said that."

I might point out that several people who tweeted Ms. Alley backthis weekto disagree with her, including myself, Amber Koter, and Ivy Shih-Leung, noticed that our tweets were blocked. I'm sad that doesn't want to have a reasoned discussion about this.

Let's all repeat:

1. The MOTHERS Act does not mandate that women be screened for postpartum depression. It actually funds research to look into how effective screening is in indentifying women who have it.

2. The MOTHERS Act does not mandate women to take drugs for postpartum depression. It doesn't take any stance whatsoever on treatment, other than to fund research into what effective treatments may be and into what causes this illness so that perhaps more targeted treatments can be developed in the future.

3. The MOTHERS Act is not sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. Its only sponsors are the Senators (Menendez) and Representatives (Rush) who created it and brought it to a vote, thanks to theunending insistenceof Carol Blocker, the mother of Melanie Blocker Stokes, who committed suicide while suffering from postpartum psychosis. Its endorsers, I might point out, include the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, the March of Dimes, the National Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies Coalition, the Children's Defense Fund and NOW. And, I'm excited to say, as of this week the National Perinatal Foundation has added its voice to those organizations that support this legislation.

4. I know plenty of women who have screened positive for postpartum depression because they were, in fact, suffering from postpartum depression. These women have been able to make their own choices about whether they wanted treatment or not, and if so, what type. I know women who've done therapy only, women who've used alternative methods, women who've taken meds. It's still a free country, thankfully, and will continue to be after the MOTHERS Act is passed.

5. Nobody will be squirting anything into babies' eyes or into any other orifices of any other person.