Bush signs bill to collect all newborns' DNA

Discussion in 'Up to the Minute' started by JanetElaine, May 20, 2008.

  1. JanetElaine

    JanetElaine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,573
    Likes Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I came across this and was reading it and it almost sounded like the script for a bad sci-fi movie. It seriously made me go to snopes and check it. Didn't find anything there, but after Googling it, it is real alright.

    http://www.infowars.com/?p=1896

    Friday, May 2, 2008
    President Bush last week signed into law a bill which will see the federal government begin to screen the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. within six months, a move critics have described as the first step towards the establishment of a national DNA database.

    [snip]

    One health care expert and prominent critic of DNA screening is Twila Brase, president of the Citizens’ Council on Health Care who has written a detailed analysis (PDF) of the new law in which she warns that it represents the first program of populationwide genetic testing.

    [snip]

    "Soon, under this bill, the DNA of all citizens will be housed in government genomic biobanks and considered governmental property for government research," Brase writes. "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."

    [snip]

    "The public is clueless. S. 1858 imposes a federal agenda of DNA databanking and population-wide genetic research. It does not require consent and there are no requirements to fully inform parents about the warehousing of their child’s DNA for the purpose of genetic research."

    I couldn't get rid of the underlines, sorry about that. They're from links in the original article.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Amraann

    Amraann Former Member

    Messages:
    9,705
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No way!!

    I am certainly not comfortable with this.
     
  4. JanetElaine

    JanetElaine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,573
    Likes Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Me neither Amraann... me neither by a long shot.
     
  5. Jen_in_Indy

    Jen_in_Indy Former Member

    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :eek:

    And what if you refuse to let your newborn's DNA be collected??
     
  6. JanetElaine

    JanetElaine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,573
    Likes Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Jen, that's what I'll be able to tell you in a few months (unless they don't do it in Ohio by then). Grrr.
     
  7. jannuncutt

    jannuncutt jannuncutt

    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If this true, it is scary as hell!!! I am just wondering why I can't find a source from mainstream media.
     
  8. golfmom

    golfmom Former Member

    Messages:
    7,188
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Probably the same type of thing that happens if you refuse to get your infant a social security number. What in the heck does a baby need a SS# for!?!?!
     
  9. JanetElaine

    JanetElaine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,573
    Likes Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Probably because like this lady said, people are clueless about this. If you Google the act name (The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007) you'll find lots of proof that it is true, including from Hillary Clinton.
     
  10. Amraann

    Amraann Former Member

    Messages:
    9,705
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My guess they will just do it right when the baby is born and the parents having just been through the birth process will not even know about it.
     
  11. Floh

    Floh Former Member

    Messages:
    7,748
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :eek::eek::eek:

    I'm heading for the hills! [​IMG]
     
  12. jannuncutt

    jannuncutt jannuncutt

    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow....thank you, Janet (my name, too!). This is unfreakinbelievable!!! This is very, very bad news.
     
  13. JanetElaine

    JanetElaine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,573
    Likes Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    113
  14. absinthe

    absinthe Former Member

    Messages:
    1,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm socialist as hell, and even I am creeped out by this.
     
  15. dottierainbow

    dottierainbow Former Member

    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm speechless!
     
  16. JanetElaine

    JanetElaine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,573
    Likes Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't stop trying to find more info about this now, lol, sorry. Hillary Clinton was actually a cosponsor of this bill (it is now a law). See here: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s1858/show

    It is btw paid for by our tax dollars, at $1.95 a family.
     
  17. christine2448

    christine2448 Retired WS Staff

    Messages:
    10,385
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Very interesting, a bit scary, indeed:

    With virtually no fanfare, President Bush signed into law a plan ordering the government to take no more than six months to set up a "national contingency plan" to screen newborns DNA in case of a "public health emergency."
    The new law requires that the results of the program – including "information … research, and data on newborn screening" – shall be assembled by a "central clearinghouse" and made available on the Internet.
    According to congressional records, S.1858, sponsored by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., was approved in the Senate Dec. 13, in the House April 8 and signed by Bush April 24.
    "Soon, under this bill, the DNA of all citizens will be housed in government genomic biobanks and considered governmental property for government research," said Twila Brase, president of the Citizens' Council on Health Care. "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."

    worldnet
     
  18. Rino

    Rino Former Member

    Messages:
    3,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From the THOMAS votes tracking page:

    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.


    As far as I can tell McCain, Obama and Hillary all voted for it. Hillary was a co-sponser, in fact.
    Only Paul is on record as voting against it.
    U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, was one of the few voices to warn of the dangers. Before the plan's approval, he said, "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."
     
  19. Taximom

    Taximom Former Member

    Messages:
    16,234
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I totally understand genetic screening of our babies, but the info should belong only to the families and doctors if the families want to share. It costs mega-bucks and takes a lot of time for the testing we had our dd go through, and she still hasn't had all the tests available purely because of the cost.

    I haven't read what the Pres. signed, but it would bother me if they kept these records. It shouldn't be shared with insurance companies or anyone else either!! :(
     
  20. JanetElaine

    JanetElaine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,573
    Likes Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's exactly it TM... I don't object to the screening (although the 'mandatory' doesn't sound too democratic). It is the *keeping* the info and storing it for good, and the fact that 'they' can do with it whatever they want without parental consent or us parents even *knowing* whether or not they did anything with it. With our baby's DNA they could create him a twin brother if they wanted, for Pete's sake. I find this sickening. And I'm waiting to be escorted out of this thread for using up the maximum number of posts, LOL.
     
  21. LadyLuck

    LadyLuck New Member

    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I do not know what to say. This should not have been passed. Since the parents do not have to give consent will they even know their baby's DNA has been taken. I bet the charge for the test will be added to the hospital bill.

    Things are so out of control in our country.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice