Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The government has your baby's DNA
CNN ^ | February 4, 2010 | Elizabeth Cohen

Posted on 02/07/2010 6:44:02 AM PST by lost in the snow

(CNN) -- When Annie Brown's daughter, Isabel, was a month old, her pediatrician asked Brown and her husband to sit down because he had some bad news to tell them: Isabel carried a gene that put her at risk for cystic fibrosis.

While grateful to have the information -- Isabel received further testing and she doesn't have the disease -- the Mankato, Minnesota, couple wondered how the doctor knew about Isabel's genes in the first place. After all, they'd never consented to genetic testing.

It's simple, the pediatrician answered: Newborn babies in the United States are routinely screened for a panel of genetic diseases. Since the testing is mandated by the government, it's often done without the parents' consent, according to Brad Therrell, director of the National Newborn Screening & Genetics Resource Center.

In many states, such as Florida, where Isabel was born, babies' DNA is stored indefinitely, according to the resource center.

Many parents don't realize their baby's DNA is being stored in a government lab, but sometimes when they find out, as the Browns did, they take action. Parents in Texas, and Minnesota have filed lawsuits, and these parents' concerns are sparking a new debate about whether it's appropriate for a baby's genetic blueprint to be in the government's possession.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: baby; dna; government; parents; privacy; rights; spy; warehouse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last
This is disturbing on many levels.
1 posted on 02/07/2010 6:44:03 AM PST by lost in the snow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lost in the snow

Ugly stuff.


2 posted on 02/07/2010 6:50:30 AM PST by Radix (I am from Massachusetts, and I voted for Scott Brown. You're welcome.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Radix

When did this begin? Does anyone know?


3 posted on 02/07/2010 6:53:25 AM PST by Boonie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lost in the snow
Welcome to Gattaca
4 posted on 02/07/2010 6:53:47 AM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boonie

Bush signed this one. I forget what its called.


5 posted on 02/07/2010 6:55:18 AM PST by cripplecreek (Seniors, the new shovel ready project under socialized medicine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lost in the snow

Yikes...


6 posted on 02/07/2010 6:55:22 AM PST by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lost in the snow

Is Obamas on file in Kenya?


7 posted on 02/07/2010 6:57:17 AM PST by BigLittle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lost in the snow
What part do they NOT understand?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

I really, really, really have distrust for our so-called government. Nothing but a bunch of g.d. traitors!

8 posted on 02/07/2010 7:14:12 AM PST by unixfox (The 13th Amendment Abolished Slavery, The 16th Amendment Reinstated It !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lost in the snow

I wonder how this got passed and what the rational was?


9 posted on 02/07/2010 7:17:41 AM PST by red tie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: red tie

The rationale was “we have to do it for the children”. Typical excuse for government tyrany.


10 posted on 02/07/2010 7:30:47 AM PST by gunnut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gunnut

Was this a CDC request?


11 posted on 02/07/2010 7:32:18 AM PST by red tie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lost in the snow

Having the DNA on file will eventually help them to determine which babies to forcibly exterminated without the parents’ consent. They’ll see a high risk of disease, poison the uterus, and then tell the mother “I’m sorry but you’ve had a miscarriage”.


12 posted on 02/07/2010 7:34:51 AM PST by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unixfox; lost in the snow
I really, really, really have distrust for our so-called government. Nothing but a bunch of g.d. traitors!

WORTH REPEATING!

Thanks for posting.

13 posted on 02/07/2010 7:36:06 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: lost in the snow

This much touted computerizing of medical records has much the same risk. Under Obamacare the death panels could have a new tool, your DNA, if you have a genetic disposition to say cancer your “treatment” would be adjusted to be cost effective. Why treat or even test for cancer if you are going to get it anyway. No different than the Nazis who did not want to waste resources for treating or caring for those who were inferior.


14 posted on 02/07/2010 7:38:14 AM PST by The Great RJ ("The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lost in the snow
Art Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, says he understands why states don't first ask permission to screen babies for genetic diseases. "It's paternalistic, but the state has an overriding interest in protecting these babies," he says.

The state has an overriding interest in protecting these children because it is paternalistic.

If the state had not over time become the father of all of the state’s children it would not need to worry about the welfare of these children because their parents would be the ones responsible for their welfare.

OK government; get out of our lives and let use worry about our children.

15 posted on 02/07/2010 7:40:11 AM PST by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer
"Having the DNA on file will eventually help them to determine which babies to forcibly exterminated without the parents’ consent. They’ll see a high risk of disease, poison the uterus, and then tell the mother “I’m sorry but you’ve had a miscarriage”."

While most people believe that is a completely ridiculous thing to say they are going to do, there's no denying that this is one more step in that direction.........

16 posted on 02/07/2010 7:40:53 AM PST by SW6906 (6 things you can't have too much of: sex, money, firewood, horsepower, guns and ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lost in the snow

If you join the Armed Forces, your DNA will be kept on file. I’m not sure what happens to it once you leave the Armed Forces.


17 posted on 02/07/2010 7:52:00 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lost in the snow
The government has your baby's DNA

I'm sure that this information is to "round out" the files that 0bama's Death Panels would need to decide whether you are allowed treatment or euthanasia.

18 posted on 02/07/2010 8:09:35 AM PST by The Sons of Liberty (Pork Eating CRUSADER - FUBO! Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boonie

in some states(like here in the People’s Republic Of MN)
it’s been going on for a while...

MN Commissioner of Health Lobbies for Intrusive “DNA Warehouse” Legislation

http://www.cchconline.org/dnalegislativearchives.php3


19 posted on 02/07/2010 8:21:21 AM PST by WOBBLY BOB (ACORN:American Corruption for Obama Right Now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lost in the snow

Brave New World or 1984?


20 posted on 02/07/2010 8:22:11 AM PST by VRW Conspirator (Liberal vs. Conservative = The vision of man versus the nature of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson