PARENTS have right to say NO, right?

As many of my readers know, my daughter had a baby girl in June.  Alyssa was born 4 week premature and had to stay in the hospital for 5 days.  What most of my readers may not know, however, is about the ordeal my daughter and her fiancé had to deal with.

Photo Credit: Photo BucketIf you watch Glenn Beck at all, you may recall a show on April 24th of this year in which Glenn said this,

Let's start here: When you have a baby, depending on where you live, the state health department takes some of the newborn's blood from their foot and sends it off to a state and private lab where they screen it.

Even though it's the largest genetic testing effort in the country, with about 4 million babies tested each year, a lot of parents don't even realize it's happening and it's difficult to impossible to opt out.

Most think it's OK, because they're just trying to make sure there are no diseases, but besides the silent agreement, there are supposed to be sunsets built in. For example, they're supposed to destroy the blood samples after they're done. In most states, they can keep it from anywhere from 6 weeks to around 3 years.

But in Minnesota, they've decided they're not destroying the blood at all — ever.

In doing so, they've been arbitrarily violating a privacy bill, which apparently has become painfully outdated since it passed way back in 2006 (remember those crazy days?).

When some moms went to court and judges sided with them, the government decided to play keep away. They kicked it around the system for a while, hoping a court would allow them to go around the law.

After that didn't work, the government realized that you don't have to fit a square peg in a round hole when you make the holes: They just created a new bill that lets them do what they want.

Angry parents say they had no chance to even debate it, since they were given all of 16 minutes of notice by e-mail before the hearing. Now Governor Tim Pawlenty may be about to sign it.

I knew that the state was becoming a nanny, but I didn't know it was trying to be the mom and dad as well.

These representatives who are supposed to — I don't know, represent us — seem to be siding with themselves instead of the rights of the people.

Our founders, like Thomas Jefferson, promised us life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (The original phrase was life, liberty and property.) If they can take your baby's DNA, they can take yours as well.

But Thomas Jefferson knew something else: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

[...]

We all have a decision to make: We're either going to be told what to do, what to say and how to act in every situation, dictated by whoever's in power or we have to take responsibility and start policing those who dare to call themselves representatives and maybe eventually they'll start representing.

I still remember watching that show.  It really impacted me.  Probably because of the impending birth of my first grand-daughter.  After talking with my daughter about it, as well as her fiancé doing much research on the subject, she and her fiancé decided to opt out of the blood test.  That is where things got very interesting!

Photo Credit: usjoj.govWhen they were first approached about the blood being drawn, my daughter and her fiancé said no and that they were refusing to authorize the taking of the blood.  They thought that would be it.  But it wasn't.  For several days, one nurse after another came in trying to take this blood sample.  Sometimes they said it was a different test, other times they questioned my daughter and fiancé asking why in the world they would refuse.  Another tactic used  was to manipulate them by telling them if they didn't do it and their baby had problems later, then what would they do?  In addition, no matter how many times my daughter's fiance asked what the reason for the test was, he never got a satisfactory answer.

As if that weren't enough, my daughter and her fiance, on the suggestion of their social worker (who mediates between patient and hospital staff) put in writing that they were refusing the test.  That should have definitely been the end of it but again it wasn't.

The next tactic used was for different nurses to come in when they thought my daughter had dropped off to sleep.  Thus, the last two days of her hospital visit was spent taking turns with her fiance to stay awake 24-7 in order to make sure that no one took this blood sample.  My daughter was so concerned that her wishes would not be honored, that even when the baby was taken to the nursery for some valid reason, she felt one of them had to be with the baby at all times to insure that her wishes were carried out.

No matter how many times my daughter and her fiance said no, it didn't matter.  Despite that, they stood their ground.  Finally after five days, the staff gave up and my daughter and her baby were released.

If we had not lived this, I would not have believed that this was happening in our country. 

You may be wondering why this is a big deal (outside of violating a parents right to say no).  Well, according to Natural News,

In April of 2008, President Bush signed into law S.1858 which allows the federal government to screen the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. This was to be implemented within 6 months meaning that this collection is now being carried out. Congressman Ron Paul states that this bill is the first step towards the establishment of a national DNA database.

S.1858, known as The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is justified as a "national contingency plan" in that it represents preparation for any sort of public health emergency. The bill states that the federal government should "continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening" and "maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening... ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the Internet and is updated at least quarterly". Sections of the bill also make it clear that DNA may be used in genetic experiments and tests. Read the full bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil...

Twila Brase, president of the Citizens' Council on Health Care warns that this new law represents the beginning of nationwide genetic testing. Brase states that S.1858 and H.R. 3825, the House version of the bill, will:

• Establish a national list of genetic conditions for which newborns and children are to be tested.
• Establish protocols for the linking and sharing of genetic test results nationwide.
• Build surveillance systems for tracking the health status and health outcomes of individuals diagnosed at birth with a genetic defect or trait.

• Use the newborn screening program as an opportunity for government agencies to identify, list, and study "secondary conditions" of individuals and their families.

• Subject citizens to genetic research without their knowledge or consent.

Read her entire analysis of the implications of this bill here: http://www.cchconline.org/pdf/S_185...

Brase states that under this bill, "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." All 50 states are now routinely providing results of genetic screenings to the Department of Homeland Security and this bill will establish the legality of that practice plus include DNA.

Ron Paul has also vigorously argued against this bill making the following comments before the US House of Representatives:
"I cannot support legislation...that exceeds the Constitutional limitations on federal power or in any way threatens the liberty of the American people. 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 United States. ..."

"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 ... 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." 

Photo Credit: smargus.comI am writing about our experience for four reasons.  First, I know some of my readers are expecting their first grand-child, or baby and I wanted you all to be aware of what you may be up against if you choose to opt out of this genetic blood test.

Second, I wanted my readers who are for national healthcare to take a step back and really think that position through.  If we open the door to the government, what else will they demand of us.

Third, this is another avenue that the state/government is transgressing parental rights.  Most people are unaware that this test is even being done.  Those who are aware and choose to opt out, have to diligently stand their ground because all tactics will be used to circumvent the parent's wishes and get this blood.

Lastly, if parents continue allowing this blood to be taken unknowingly, what lies down the road?  For instance, what if it is discovered that your child has a genetic disposition for cystic fibrosis?  Does that mean that the said child might be turned down for insurance in the future or medical treatment?  How much further will our government go? 

There are so many problems on so many levels with this bill.  According to

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.

Brase states that S.1858 and H.R. 3825, the House version of the bill, will:

• Establish a national list of genetic conditions for which newborns and children are to be tested.
• Establish protocols for the linking and sharing of genetic test results nationwide.
• Build surveillance systems for tracking the health status and health outcomes of individuals diagnosed at birth with a genetic defect or trait.
• Use the newborn screening program as an opportunity for government agencies to identify, list, and study "secondary conditions" of individuals and their families.
• Subject citizens to genetic research without their knowledge or consent.

So...a parent still has a right to say no in America, right?  That begs antother question: "But for how long?"

ADDITIONAL READING: 1.   Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007

                                    2.  Critical Analysis of the Implication for Genetic

                                         Privacy and Consent Right Proposed

                                         in Congress Propsed 'Newborn

                                         Screening Saves Lives

                                         Act of 2007.                                                          

                                   3.  Ministers keep innocent on DNA database

                                    4. National DNA database gets kickstart from feds

And last but not least -

Remaining Steadfast,

Comments

[Mr Pink Eyes]

The state is in the process of taking away more and more parental rights, this is another example. It aggravates me to no end that the state thinks they no better than we do what is good for us and our children.Once a person denies any medical procedure or treatment that should be the end of it, it is our right.

[LarryJackson]

This simply stinks, in my opinion. More and more, we are seeing the government moving to reduce the rights we have as parents. They think they know better and can do a better job at raising our children. I beg to differ. It is an awesome responsibility to be a parent, but it is also an awesome gift from God himself. No one should try to minimize that gift by taking it away and giving it to the government.

[Dominique]

Larry - And don't forget that it is our Constitutional right to be parents and live our lives as we see fit!

[JudgeRight]

More and more I'm moving closer to the idea that it doesn't matter which party wins power, they're both moving us ever closer to socialism. The only difference is the speed with which each ship carries us there. Libertarians need to exercise a massive education campaign followed by an even more massive election campaign. Rights and liberty were eroding away, but with Barack, Nancy and Harry we are witnessing a massive collapse of the bedrock principals this nation was founded on. When the resisters look like lone nuts standing on tiny knolls of rights and principals... at what point must we say "the cause is lost?" Until then, look into the enumerated powers act. That is the only measure that can save the original grand experiment that America was intended to be.

[Dominique]

JudgeRight - I completely agree with you. I will take a look at the enumerated act as soon as I have some free time between taking care of my daughter and my grand-child. Thanks for dropping by. I have missed chatting with you.

[Dominique]

Mr. Pink Eyes - The state becoming "parents" of our children is quite a disturbing thought for me. What our children will look like after they are done with them is anybody's guess. But I do know this...they won't be God fearing, conservative, upright, responsible, hard-working individuals who contribute in a positive manner to our society!