Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

lquadland10 (< 20)

no parental control of your child DNA Government controls it. Thank you C Dodd and CFR Members.

Recs

8

July 28, 2009 – Comments (3) | RELATED TICKERS: SLV , AUY

I was trying to de stress watching the History Channel. Well that did not work. My rant. I am so pi  ssed off I can't see straight. They said Bush passed a bill to collect the childs blood for government storage. Why do they want our child's DNA without your consent. Dodd with housing and now with DNA> Talk me down Fools I do need to sleep tonight. Then Obama and congress with UNERVASAL HEALTH. Oh he  ll no. OK. so here is the bill. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1858

Congress > LegislationS. 1858:110th Congress2007-2008Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007

 A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish grant programs to provide for education and outreach on newborn screening and coordinated followup care once newborn screening has been conducted, to reauthorize programs under part A of title XI of such Act, and for other purposes.

Sponsor:Sen. Christopher Dodd [D-CT]show cosponsors (21)Cosponsors [as of 2009-01-09]Sen. Christopher Bond [R-MO]Sen. Sherrod Brown [D-OH]Sen. Maria Cantwell [D-WA]Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D-MD]Sen. Robert Casey [D-PA]Sen. Hillary Clinton [D-NY]Sen. Norm Coleman [R-MN]Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]Sen. Thomas Harkin [D-IA]Sen. Orrin Hatch [R-UT]Sen. Daniel Inouye [D-HI]Sen. Tim Johnson [D-SD]Sen. Edward Kennedy [D-MA]Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]Sen. Blanche Lincoln [D-AR]Sen. Richard Lugar [R-IN]Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D-MD]Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA]Sen. Bernard Sanders [I-VT]Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]Text:Summary | Full TextCost:less than $1 per American in 2008.

This is computed from a Congressional Budget Office report, merely by dividing the estimated cost of $11,000,000 by the U.S. population. The figure is extracted from the report automatically

and may be incorrect. See the report for details.

Status:IntroducedJul 23, 2007Referred to CommitteeView Committee AssignmentsReported by CommitteeNov 14, 2007Amendments (1 proposed)View AmendmentsPassed SenateDec 13, 2007Passed HouseApr 8, 2008Signed by PresidentApr 24, 2008This bill became law. It was signed by George Bush.Last Action:Apr 24, 2008: Became Public Law No: 110-204.

See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms that have been applied to this bill. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.Votes: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.  Yep. Tolal coruption and our childs DNA I believe that the Media now violates some law. Find it They are now to big and need to be broken up and sold off like they did ATT back in the 70's.
SupportOpposeLiam Hammonds Memorial FoundationAssociation of Public Health Laboratories (none)

Follow the link to MAPLight.org to see if campaign contributions from employees of these organizations are correlated with how Members of Congress voted on this bill.

Because the U.S. Congress posts most legislative information online one legislative day after events occur, GovTrack is usually one legislative day behind. For more information about where this data comes from, see About GovTrack.us.

 

 

3 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On July 29, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Scottmom (< 20) wrote:

Calm down....Newborn screening involves collecting a tiny drop of blood to test for disorders that can kill babies or leave them seriously disabled. Most of the collected blood is used up by the testing. The medical and laboraotory professionals that store blood use the stored blood to improve testing. For example, they develop tests to protect children against other life-threatening disorders.The blood is collected on paper and dried so it cannot be used in some of the scary ways that partisans are claiming such as cloning or profiting off of your child's DNA.

Report this comment
#2) On July 29, 2009 at 10:57 AM, protectbabydna (< 20) wrote:

Commenter number 1 is incorrect on at least two counts.

First, this is not a partisan issue. Parents on every side of the political aisle who discover these State baby DNA repositories are concerned. Some are angry enough to sue. A recent study reported in a genomics journal found that many parents are willing to participate in genetic research using their newborn's blood, but not without their consent.

Second, much of the newborn's blood is NOT used for the testing. Except for the rare child found with a condition, much of the blood (DNA) remains intact. In states where it is stored (see our 50-state chart), the DNA is considered state government property. In certain states, the baby's blood specimen is now being used for other purposes, primarily genetic research (sometimes referred to as newborn screening studies or public health studies). But the use of baby DNA could expand beyond genetic research. As state government property, state legislatures could decide to use it for other purposes, such as law enforcement or interference in private reproductive decisions.

As we have discovered, states are storing baby DNA in growing numbers without parent consent or knowledge. Uses include publicly- and privately-funded genetic research aimed at expanding the number of conditions for which children are tested at birth without parent consent.

Although the test was originally aimed at discovering rare newborn conditions, there are tests now under development for testing children for childhood- and adult-onset diseases and disorders, including diabetes and cancer, conditions that individuals have a right not to know. One genetic coalition envisions a day when all children are tested at birth by the state government for at least 200 conditions.

In many states, parents cannot refuse the testing, unless they can claim a religious exemption. In Nebraska, several parents have been taken to court when they refused the testing. Parent refusal is growing in Minnesota where a 2003 law allows parents to opt out of testing and storage of both test results and the DNA—although many parents report being badgered by hospital staff (see our "Taking Baby DNA" stories online - http://www.cchconline.org/reallifestories.php). In 2008, 89 parents refused. We hear from parents that they want the testing, primarily the PKU, but they do not want the State to get their baby's DNA. Some parents opt to pay for private testing.

Another MN law requires written consent for government and private entity's collection, storage, use and dissemination of genetic information, but the Minnesota Department of Health has refused to follow the law. As a result, there is a LAWSUIT pending in Minnesota, filed by ten families. Another Fourth Amendment lawsuit is pending in Texas.

The newborn genetic testing issue generally has two areas of concern. There are growing concerns about about expanding the conditions for which newborn citizens are tested (for instance, the President's Council on Bioethics newborn screening paper (12/08) cautions against a slide into eugenics) and there are concerns about the storage, unconsented genetic research and presumed ownership by government of the child's unique genetic code, as discussed by The Washington Post on June 30, 2009...and the Glenn Beck Program on April 24, 2009.

Go to www.protectbabydna.org for more information.

Report this comment
#3) On July 29, 2009 at 5:43 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Thank You. eugenics. Yep. The government is going after the elderly and the new born.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement