Government to Collect, Track DNA of All Children

0 votes

H.R. 3825 and S. 1858

"A Critical Analysis of the Implications for Genetic Privacy and Consent Rights in Congress’ Proposed ‘Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007’" states how the government plans to treat the DNA of every newborn, even those whose parents are completely aligned with the mainstream:

Establish a national list of genetic conditions for which newborns and children are to be tested.
Establish protocols for the linking and sharing of genetic test results nationwide.
Build surveillance systems for tracking the health status and health outcomes of individuals diagnosed at birth with a genetic defect or trait.
Use the newborn screening program as an opportunity for government agencies to identify, list, and study "secondary conditions" of individuals and their families.
Subject citizens to genetic research without their knowledge or consent.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/shore/shore15.html

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I guess Eletes want this data

to recruit people for new world order. Job hiring will probably be based on DNA in the future.

OK Then

Your next child or grandchild is going to to get squeezed like a succulent orange at birth and the juice will be collected and stored in the refrigerator-freezer section of your nearest federal repository.

But nobody knows because they're all out riding posse on trolls.

Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine

Can Anyone Confirm?

I believe that this bill to track DNA is the same one reported on several days ago which was described as a bill to stop insures from discriminating against people for genetic reasons.

This is outrageous. People were sold a pig in a poke and they don't know and they don't care.

Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine

Two different bills

is why you heard this one on the news and the other got buried!

Someone have the bill # for above?

Here ya go

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (H.R.493)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00493:

Pretty coincidental, that they'd overwhelmingly suddenly approve this bill...out of the blue...

Obviously, there'd be no need for this bill at all, if they were not planning to take everyone's DNA in the first place.

Isn't it interesting

there was great fanfare on the news about HR 493 and the other was buried! "Look what we did for you!" This makes my head hurt!

So why didn't they tell us?

So why didn't they tell us? Not trying to start any conspiracy theories here (you know me) but doesn't it seem odd that virtually no news outlets whatsoever reported on this ground breaking legislation (as posted above, Google News has a mere four hits for the name of this bill)?

Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine

Excellent Research -- Thank You

"Obviously, there'd be no need for this bill at all, if they were not planning to take everyone's DNA in the first place."

Precisely.

Does it even matter if an old fart like me refuses? In a couple of decades, the majority of the population will be in the database anyway. I also would bet that tracking everyones' DNA will be a part of national health care (no matter who puts it in place) and that the chips won't be far behind.

OK, who out there isn't seething with outrage?

Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine

The Newborn Screening Act

The Newborn Screening Act (passed 4-28) is H.R. 3825, and its companion bill (passed 12-07) was S.1858

I don't know what bill number attaches to the bill to stop insurers from discriminating based on genetic profiles.

If they are two different bills, did they pass on the same day? In both cases (if they are indeed separate) Ron was the only dissenting vote.

BTW, if my insurer charges me a higher rate because I am a smoker with a preexisting condition, and both an addiction to nicotine and the preexisting condition can be shown to have genetic markers, does this mean that my insurance rates will go down?

Think about it -- if genetics can't be used to calculate insurance rates then all rates would have to be the same with a possible exception for various age groups or when considering a preexisting condition which was caused strictly by injury and therefore unrelated to a person's genetic profile.

Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine

Based on age

Then people could file for age discrimination!!! After all, they can't be held liable for genes that don't allow them to live to be 100, 200, or older.

And pre-existing conditions which are caused by injury? Traced back to the dumb as dirt gene, and therefore excluded from discrimination as well.

Let's Just All Join in a Circle, Hand in Hand

...and sing a few verses of "Kumbya."

That will make it that much easier for them to knock us over like a string of dominoes.

Actually, this bill sounds like something out of the Vonnegut story Harrison Bergeron in which all citizens were subject to the tender mercies of the Handicapper General who made everyone equal by disabling the smart and the strong.

Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine

Statement by Rep. Ron Paul on S. 1858

Statement by Rep. Ron Paul on S. 1858
4/9/2008

Madame Speaker, as an OB-GYN I take a back seat to no one when it comes to caring about the health of newborn children. However, as a Representative who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, I cannot support legislation, no matter how much I sympathize with the legislation’s stated goals, that exceed the Constitutional limitations on federal power or in any way threatens the liberty of the American people. Since S. 1858 violates the Constitution, and may have untended consequences that will weaken the American health care system and further erode medical privacy, I must oppose it.

S. 1858 gives the federal bureaucracy the authority to develop a model newborn screening program. Madame Speaker the federal government lacks both the constitutional authority and the competence to develop a newborn screening program adequate for a nation as large and diverse as the Untied States. Some will say that the program is merely a guide for local hospitals. However, does anyone seriously believe that, whatever the flaws contained in the model eventually adopted by the federal government, almost every hospital in the country will scrap their own newborn screening programs in favor of the federal model? After all, no hospital will want to risk losing federal funding because they did not adopt the “federally-approved” plan for newborn screening. This, thus bill takes another step toward the nationalization of health care.

As the federal government assumes more control over health care, medical privacy has increasingly come under assault. Those of us in the medical profession should be particularly concerned about policies allowing government officials and state-favored interests to access our medical records without our consent. After all, patient confidentiality is the basis of the trust that must underline a positive physician-patient relationship. Yet my review of S. 1858 indicates the drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children.

In fact, by directing federal bureaucrats to create a contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a “public health” disaster, this bill may lead to further erosions of medical privacy. As recent history so eloquently illustrates, politicians are more than willing to take, and people are more than willing to cede, liberty during times of “emergency.” Thus, most people will gladly sacrifice their families’ medical privacy if they are told it is necessary to protect them from a government-declared health emergency, while the federal government will be very unlikely to relinquish its’ new powers when the emergency passes.

I am also skeptical, to say the least, that a top-down federal plan to screen any part of the population will effectively help meet the challenges facing the health care system in the event of a real public emergency. State and local governments working together with health care providers, can better come up with effective ways to deal with public health emergencies than can any federal bureaucracy. It is for these reasons Madame Speaker that I oppose S. 1858.

See:

http://www.aapsonline.org/legis/pauls1858.php

THIS IS NOW THE LAW.

YOUR KIDS WILL BE TESTED AT BIRTH -- YOU CAN'T SAY 'NO'!

Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine

I can forsee

a HUGE jump in the popularity of home midwives now...

~Live life to its fullest, with an open heart, open arms and most important... an open mind~

I have three kids

Two were born at home and the last was just me and my wife. The midwife didn't show up until 30 minutes later. It was a textbook birth and was awesome to witness. Hospitals and doctors scare you into thinking bad things will happen if you don't go to the hospital for delivery, but in reality they cause most of the birthing problems.

Good For You!

Excellent work. Glad to see that you didn't fall into the old Butterfly McQueen trap.

Cheers!

Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine

I'm sure you are right. And

I'm sure you are right. And Ron has promoted legislation to make it easier (less difficult?) for midwives to practice -- despite the fact that as an OB-GYN they are his competition. Once again Ron's integrity shines through.

But it is a shame that many people who would prefer to have their baby born in what they may consider to be the safer venue of a hospital will feel less free to do so from now on.

Liberty is breathing her last.

Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine

Here in PA

the CNM (certified nurse midwife) must work in conjunction with another OB in case of a last minute problem, then the birth would take place in the hospital, where the OB has privileges. CNM's do not have admitting privileges.

The CNM are utilized for non-issue, or low risk pregnancies only. Otherwise, they are referred to the OB.

Also, CNM liability insurance is much less than the OB's; thus, the CNM many times are in the same practice with their "supervisor".

I'm sure the evil-doers who drafted this bill have a way to capture the home birth babies DNA also.

GAME OVER: The Bill Was Signed in April

See:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/6676

In government, nothing is sacred
April 28, 2008 - 5:49pm
Signed into law April 24, 2008, the oh-so innocent sounding Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 establishes a national database of newborn DNA.

This law establishes collection and warehousing of newborn DNA for scientific research and requires no parental consent or knowledge.

As reported by Minnesota state health department, 42,210 of the 780,000 children whose DNA have been taken have been subjected to genetic research.

As usual, the government tells us that they are looking out for our best interests and have the utmost concern for our health and safety.

In this age of bio-engineering and designer diseases engineered to attack individuals or groups based on genetic differences, is this the kind of wholesale control of the population's genetic makeup we want to transfer to the government?

Well, it is too late. It is the law now, and no hospital will forego the government largesse that accompanies their complicity.

As usual, as we continue to be transfixed by the hysterical presidential campaigns, the Democrat Congress and the Republican President joined forces to strip away the most personal of privacies. The very essence of your being.

As usual again, one Representative stood in opposition to this bill. You can view his statement before the House below.

http://www.aapsonline.org/legis/pauls1858.php

Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine

A Google News search for

A Google News search for Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 yields only four results. See:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=%E2%80%98N...

They are bringing this in completely under the radar. If we don't do something now, we will wake up one day and it will be law.

Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine

Weeeeeeee

1984 has been fulfilled, onward to Brave New World. The news just keeps getting better everyday....

"The body is but a vessel for the soul,
A puppet which bends to the soul's tyranny.
And lo, the body is not eternal,
For it must feed on the flesh of others,
Lest it return to the dust whence it came.
Therefore the soul deceives and despises."

The Republicans (not Ron)

The Republicans (not Ron) are 1984, the Democrats are Brave New World.

We get to select which horrific vision of the future we will subscribe to each four years.

Hooray!

Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine

They're actually the same thing....

They just want a Democrat in right now. Why else do you think the Republican party is backing McCain? He's the easiest to beat of the bunch... :) They just need thier other face of the same evil in there right now to let the unawakened know that thier vote counts and ll is good in Amerika.

~Live life to its fullest, with an open heart, open arms and most important... an open mind~

I agree. As Emerson says in

I agree. As Emerson says in Politics, the two parties easily reverse their stances as expediency requires.

Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine

Which is exactly why...

The Republican party, who have traditionally been elected to stop a war, is now pro-war... and the Democrats are (supposedly) anti-war.

They just swap rhetoric to get into office whomever they want in office.

~Live life to its fullest, with an open heart, open arms and most important... an open mind~

About a hundred years ago

the communists were open about wanting to take over one or both political parties. They succeeded with the Democrat party, and have been highly successful in neutralizing the Republican party by splitting it internally.

Utah is a great example of the Republican party largely being taken over by statists. I can tell some stories that have happened before my eyes that will make you tear your hair out. However, there are some good stories, too, because there is a lot of "grass roots" activity that keeps the party from being overtly "democrat light", and who also can bring effective pressure to bear on the state legislature. That is where I've seen "the People" be most effective; it's easier to get good people in State offices than Federal offices, and good people can have a direct impact.

Also, one the local level (city, etc.) there's a lot of good that can be done. Some of the biggest problems of statism are not from the Federal government, but cities out of control. Cities get really overt in their goodie exchange. They'll gladly raise taxes, confiscate property and hand it over to big companies or developers, shut down business, tie people's hands with rules and regulations, etc. If it increases their power, brings in money (thinking it's power), they'll gladly do it with a smile.

HeY!

Let's drop the silly Chomsky thread and migrate here.. ;)

I need to read up on it more before I can post anything intelligent about it tho... so

B
U
M
P

and brb!

~Live life to its fullest, with an open heart, open arms and most important... an open mind~

We need to get on this

We need to get on this now.

We need to know where this bill stands as of today (it passed the Senate in Dec. 07).

Then we need to find out who the swing votes will be and we need to get others discussing this in barber shops, grocery stores, talk radio, letters to the editor, etc.

This is a major sea change in the tracking of American citizens. It's happening NOW.

Ron Paul Explorer: The All Paul Search Engine

With all the resistance to

With all the resistance to the Real ID I'm surprised there isn't even more resistance to this. Rather than having your ID on a card with an embedded RFID chip the government now has the chips in place to build a DNA ID database.

Imagine, a trackable ID which you can never leave home without... because eventually, given enough time, technology will be developed for quick and easy DNA analysis - even at a distance.

...

Why can't they test and then discard the sample?

Testing and discarding the sample would seem
to be the logical way to do this. Also it should
be opt-in not opt-out.

not happening

write it down, etch it in stone......this will not happen to my child. I will not allow it.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com