Survivalist Forum banner
  • Are you passionate about survivalism? Would you like to write about topics that interest you and get paid for it? Read all about it here!
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Permanently gone
Joined
·
1,720 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.aapsonline.org


National “DNA warehouse” bill passes
Passing the House of Representatives on a voice vote, S. 1858 has been sent to President Bush for signature. The Newborn Genetic Screening bill was passed by the Senate last December. The bill violates the U.S. Constitution and the Nuremberg Code, writes Twila Brase, president of the Citizen’s Council on Health Care (CCHC). “The DNA taken at birth from every citizen is essentially owned by the government, and every citizen becomes a potential subject of government-sponsored genetic research,” she states. “It does not require consent and there are no requirements to inform parents about the warehousing of their child’s DNA for the purpose of genetic research. Already, in Minnesota, the state health department reports that 42,210 children of the 780,000 whose DNA is housed in the Minnesota ‘DNA warehouse’ have been subjected to genetic research without their parents’ knowledge or consent.”

The federal government lacks the Constitutional authority as well as the competence to develop a newborn screening program, states Rep. Ron Paul, M.D. (R-TX). He states that all hospitals will probably scrap their own newborn testing program and adopt the federal model, whatever its flaws, to avoid the loss of federal funding.

“Drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure that these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children,” Dr. Paul noted.

Ms. Brase has called on President Bush to veto the bill.

Additional information:

Read the complete text of Rep. Paul’s statement.
Read the bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1858
AAPS Position Paper on Genetic Testing



http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1858


Introduced Jul 23, 2007
Scheduled for Debate Dec 5, 2007
Amendments (1 proposed) [details]
Passed Senate [details] Dec 13, 2007
Passed House Apr 8, 2008
Signed by President Apr 24, 2008

This bill has become law. [Last Updated: Apr 28, 2008]

Votes on Passage
Dec 13, 2007: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each representative's position was not kept.
Apr 8, 2008: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.


Statement by Rep. Ron Paul on S. 1858

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
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.

So. There you have it. The DNA of each citizen (newborn) is now subject to government scrutiny--with OR without their parents permission.
Personal opinion; The Constitution is now obsolete. It is done. Over with.
They will say "It's for the c-h-i-i-i-l-l-l-d-r-e-n " (the battle cry of all tyrants these days) and then they will extend the database to include kids in Head Start, elementary schools, middle schools...the order will go out to pediatricians and health dept.s...then one day your internist or the nice nurse in the ER will saunter in with a swab. "It's to assure we give you the correct treatment" they'll say--or some other plausible excuse.

Goodbye to The United States of America.
Goodbye to The Constitution.
Goodbye to The Bill Of Rights.
You had a good run.
 

·
Information is Ammunition
Joined
·
22,122 Posts
Rome had a longer bout of peace than the US was even around for. we came, we saw, we epic failed
 

·
Member, Tin foil hat club
Joined
·
397 Posts
I home birth and home school my children. Yet some how, I am sure they will find a way to get ahold of my children. My oldest daughter was hospitalized as a baby with rotovirus. My oldest son was treated for pneumonia. Who knows- they may already have their DNA somewhere. How long before they start doing door-to-door cataloging to make sure they don't miss anyone?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
Votes on Passage
Dec 13, 2007: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each representative's position was not kept.
Apr 8, 2008: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.

Does this mean that Ron Paul voted to pass the bill???
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top