Bush signs bill to collect all newborns' DNA

Here is a link to the bill:

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

I don't see anything about storing every newborn's dna. It appears to support research and information sharing to screen more newborns for things like Tay-Sachs disease, etc.

Not a big deal.

I did too and I don't see where there is a DNA warehouse in it. I see that they want standardized testing in federally approved labs -- but I don't see the storage of sample or anything like that. It looks more to me like that if they find something, they aren't reporting it to anyone other than you and your doctor. Along with a "clearning house" that provides *INFORMATION* about the screenings available and the diseases that can be found.

If it is in there could someone please show us FROM THE BILL ITSELF -- not a news site? I've quit reading the news sites and watching cable news channels because they either can't get the story straight or they are into scaring the bejeevers out of all of us. Which I am beginning to think is happening here.
 
I read through it too (quickly). I saw one or two lines that caught me off guard, but i agree that the media is spinning this and getting people more frustrated than people may be if they read the bill.

If there are specific concerns in the bill, not media, I would like to read address the issues that way as well.
 
what are they going to change when they have the childs DNA?!??! they can't change anything... just treat it.
next thing is forced sterilization
 
I did too and I don't see where there is a DNA warehouse in it. I see that they want standardized testing in federally approved labs -- but I don't see the storage of sample or anything like that. It looks more to me like that if they find something, they aren't reporting it to anyone other than you and your doctor. Along with a "clearning house" that provides *INFORMATION* about the screenings available and the diseases that can be found.

If it is in there could someone please show us FROM THE BILL ITSELF -- not a news site? I've quit reading the news sites and watching cable news channels because they either can't get the story straight or they are into scaring the bejeevers out of all of us. Which I am beginning to think is happening here.

I don't know, but wouldn't they need to keep it for the research they plan to do?

ETA: In any case, if/when it belongs to them, they can do what they want. :(
 
I don't know, but wouldn't they need to keep it for the research they plan to do?

I didn't see anything about the research of the diseases -- as a matter of fact -- I don't see ANYTHING AT ALL about them taking DNA from ANYBODY. The entire bill is truly about the TESTS and not about the DNA. Not one time does the word DNA even show up in the thing!

The purpose of the bill (as it appears to me) is to make the testing of the blood samples THEY ALREADY TAKE FROM YOUR NEWBORN more standard and give the states money to research and implement the newest technologies and for the government to evaluate the EFFECTIVENESS of those testing strategies. The "contingency plan" that looks so fearful really is a plan of how to screen if there is a National Health Emergency -- which has never happened before and would affect EVERY person living here. The process is to make sure that the screening done during those times is not compromised or disturbed.

I've just read this entire thing for the THIRD time -- I would suggest you go read this and stop reading the news sites -- the proof is in the document. I think the idea they are getting this from is a misreading of the document (maybe accidental but more than likely purposeful). As I said before, if someone could show me from the document where the DNA is being stored, I'd change my mind. But for now it seems like someone in the news media is trying to scare us all.
 
Doesn't this thing have to include dna testing in the screening of all infants? I wouldn't think a blood test would show all the genetic diseases that a child could inherit. Is there a list yet for the genetic disorders that they plan to screen for? They want all infants screened and each state will have to do this in order to get the grant money.

"will use amounts received under such grant to adopt and implement the guidelines and recommendations of the Advisory Committee that are adopted by the Secretary and in effect at the time the grant is awarded or renewed under this section, which shall include the screening of each newborn for the heritable disorders recommended by the Advisory Committee and adopted by the Secretary.';"
 
Do you agree that they will be doing genetic testing? That's where the DNA comes into play. As for the research, it mentions 'research information', 'applied research', a 'research program', etc. I would assume (don't know...which is why I said the same earlier), the DNA would be kept/used for that research.

It doesn't need to directly state "mandatory", "dna" or "storage" for any of it to apply. You know, it also doesn't mention "suspected newborns", "affected newborns", "with parental consent" or even "select newborns". In fact, I noticed "3) make systematic evidence-based and peer-reviewed recommendations that include the heritable disorders that have the potential to significantly impact public health for which all newborns should be screened, including secondary conditions that may be identified as a result of the laboratory methods used for screening." and "(c) Approval Factors- An application submitted for a grant under subsection (a)(1) shall not be approved by the Secretary unless the application contains assurances that the eligible entity has adopted and implemented, is in the process of adopting and implementing, or will use amounts received under such grant to adopt and implement the guidelines and recommendations of the Advisory Committee that are adopted by the Secretary and in effect at the time the grant is awarded or renewed under this section, which shall include the screening of each newborn for the heritable disorders recommended by the Advisory Committee and adopted by the Secretary." (ETA: So, one could argue it's not mandatory, because it doesn't state the word 'mandatory'. However, it certainly implies it.)
 
what are they going to change when they have the childs DNA?!??! they can't change anything... just treat it.
next thing is forced sterilization

I've got a couple of names of people I'd like to top the list if it ever becomes available.:crazy::crazy:
 
Do you agree that they will be doing genetic testing? That's where the DNA comes into play. As for the research, it mentions 'research information', 'applied research', a 'research program', etc. I would assume (don't know...which is why I said the same earlier), the DNA would be kept/used for that research.

It doesn't need to directly state "mandatory", "dna" or "storage" for any of it to apply. You know, it also doesn't mention "suspected newborns", "affected newborns", "with parental consent" or even "select newborns". In fact, I noticed "3) make systematic evidence-based and peer-reviewed recommendations that include the heritable disorders that have the potential to significantly impact public health for which all newborns should be screened, including secondary conditions that may be identified as a result of the laboratory methods used for screening." and "(c) Approval Factors- An application submitted for a grant under subsection (a)(1) shall not be approved by the Secretary unless the application contains assurances that the eligible entity has adopted and implemented, is in the process of adopting and implementing, or will use amounts received under such grant to adopt and implement the guidelines and recommendations of the Advisory Committee that are adopted by the Secretary and in effect at the time the grant is awarded or renewed under this section, which shall include the screening of each newborn for the heritable disorders recommended by the Advisory Committee and adopted by the Secretary." (ETA: So, one could argue it's not mandatory, because it doesn't state the word 'mandatory'. However, it certainly implies it.)

All that says is that the Advisory Committee should decide what diseases should be screened for and that any lab that receives money under this bill must screen for them. As far a "each" and "every" baby, chances are if you have had a baby in the fast five to ten years your child's DNA is ALREADY stored somewhere -- at least partially. The "research" that is in the bill is one the METHODS and TECHNOLOGIES of the testing -- not the samples being tested.

I still don't see the warehousing and I still don't see all the fear that is out there. I see more benefits than disadvantages. But then again I also don't go reading all those crazy websites that are strictly anti-everything and trying to convince us that the world is going to the dogs.
 
Ok, but 'when' isn't my issue, I want knowledge/understanding and consent. I don't think that's expecting or demanding too much.

I don't think the 'research' is the actual testing procedure. For instance, it mentions "...make recommendations for the establishment of regional centers for the conduct of applied epidemiological research." That's ongoing (health/disease research)...not about or even over/done with a test. Although, it wouldn't matter...it belongs to them and things change.

Also, I'm not reading the news websites (rather, the bill/law). Why do you keep assuming my opinion is from "crazy websites"? It's a little insulting...and I'm not insulting you for your take on it.
 
Ok, but 'when' isn't my issue, I want knowledge/understanding and consent. I don't think that's expecting or demanding too much.

I don't think the 'research' is the actual testing procedure. For instance, it mentions "...make recommendations for the establishment of regional centers for the conduct of applied epidemiological research." That's ongoing (health/disease research)...not about or even over/done with a test. Although, it wouldn't matter...it belongs to them and things change.

Also, I'm not reading the news websites (rather, the bill/law). Why do you keep assuming my opinion is from "crazy websites"? It's a little insulting...and I'm not insulting you for your take on it.

Sorry, Diamond -- I wasn't trying to be insulting. The last part wasn't meant directly at you. Just the first paragraph about the text in the bill. I try to put things together so I don't jamb up the whole thread.
 
Sorry, Diamond -- I wasn't trying to be insulting. The last part wasn't meant directly at you. Just the first paragraph about the text in the bill. I try to put things together so I don't jamb up the whole thread.

Ok, KyGal...sorry. I thought you were trying to tell me something, lol. I have read the other websites (ETA: the first day, and I realize they can be slanted), but I'm basing my concerns on the actual bill/law. Well, at least, my take on it. Thanks.
 
Am I correct in reading that each state will also get funding for this? I read at a few "crazy" websites and haven't seen this bill or law mentioned. If anyone has any links to any websites discussing it I'd like to have the links so I can see what people are saying.
 
Am I correct in reading that each state will also get funding for this? I read at a few "crazy" websites and haven't seen this bill or law mentioned. If anyone has any links to any websites discussing it I'd like to have the links so I can see what people are saying.

I believe so, about the funding. I read a couple links posted here, I don't know of any others.
 
Wow. That is creepy. I just hope we don't ever end up Zombies or anything. I am Legend scared me.:/
 
At least there's the possibility of an end to unclaimed dead children and their murderers being punished. I understand the other issues involved but wouldn't it be wonderful for their to be no more Sharon Marshalls and boys in boxes? There would be no more new cases like these:

http://doenetwork.org/cases/68umbc.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/69umbc.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/4umpa.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/776umco.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/461umva.html
http://doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase572.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/871umca.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/14ufaz.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/45ufms.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/54ufmo.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase1118.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/482uftn.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase290.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/471uffra.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase705.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase1117.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/50ufny.html
http://doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase456.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase657.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase858.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/160uffl.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/557ufco.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/437umnc.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/432ufdc.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/420umin.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase264.html
http://doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase227.html
http://doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase280.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/886umil.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/479ufnj.html

Some of these cases could even be solved if the mothers of these children give birth to new babies. And this list doesn't include babies who died not long after birth and were most likely not born in a hospital or teenagers (the list would be pages).
 
At least there's the possibility of an end to unclaimed dead children and their murderers being punished. I understand the other issues involved but wouldn't it be wonderful for their to be no more Sharon Marshalls and boys in boxes? There would be no more new cases like these:

http://doenetwork.org/cases/68umbc.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/69umbc.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/4umpa.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/776umco.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/461umva.html
http://doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase572.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/871umca.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/14ufaz.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/45ufms.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/54ufmo.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase1118.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/482uftn.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase290.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/471uffra.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase705.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase1117.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/50ufny.html
http://doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase456.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase657.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase858.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/160uffl.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/557ufco.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/437umnc.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/432ufdc.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/420umin.html
http://www.doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase264.html
http://doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase227.html
http://doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase280.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/886umil.html
http://doenetwork.org/cases/479ufnj.html

Some of these cases could even be solved if the mothers of these children give birth to new babies. And this list doesn't include babies who died not long after birth and were most likely not born in a hospital or teenagers (the list would be pages).

I want these cases to be solved as much as anyone, but I don't understand how a law can be imposed on the majority that will benefit the minority. I also think it is naive to think that DNA will not be warehoused.
 
not sure where to put this question i've had for a while. it is off topic but sorta connected to the post about using this DNA to find the unsolved missing. everytime a child is born at least any of mine. the hospital took the babies footprints. footprints don't change, except for cuts and stuff like that just like fingerprints but i never hear of them using the footprints taken in the hospitals as a way to identify people. why?
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
209
Guests online
4,423
Total visitors
4,632

Forum statistics

Threads
592,648
Messages
17,972,469
Members
228,852
Latest member
janisjoplin
Back
Top