Government's plan to claim ownership of every newborn's DNA

[Raineyrocks]

http://infowars.net/articles/april2008/040408DNA.htm


Health Council Warns Of Goverment Plan To Claim Ownership Of Every Newborn's DNA
Pending Minnesota bill will strip citizens of genetic privacy and DNA ownership rights
      

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, April 4, 2008
   
   
View This Story On Propeller.com!
   
StumbleUpon

A prominent Health Organization has warned that there is an ongoing semi-covert movement by state and federal governments to claim ownership of every newborn baby's DNA for the purpose of genetic research without the consent of individual citizens.

A pending bill on the floor of the Minnesota House and Senate will strip citizens of genetic privacy and DNA ownership rights, The Citizens Council on Healthcare has warned.

"Today, a state genetic privacy law requires informed parent consent for government testing, ownership and research on the DNA of the newest Minnesota residents. The Minnesota Department of Health wants to eliminate the informed consent requirements. A bill to remove consent requirements for government ownership and genetic research will soon be voted on by the Minnesota House and Senate." The CCHC website explains.

"Thus far, the state of Minnesota has illegally collected and claims ownership to the DNA of 780,000 children (soon to be voting adults) and has provided the DNA of 42,210 children to genetic researchers without parent consent. Approximately, 73,000 children are born in Minnesota every year. About 4.2 million children are born across the nation. All of them are losing their genetic privacy and DNA ownership rights." the organization's report continues.

The state treats the activity as an "opt out" program, whereby if the parents of the newborn infant do not specifically opt out of the process, the state presumes its has "informed consent" and that the parents have opted in.

(Article continues below)

CCHC President Twila Brase has warned that the databases housing the DNA could form the basis for a new eugenics movement, the practice of "perfecting" the human race through genetic manipulation, previously endorsed by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and toyed with by the likes of Adolf Hitler.

Ms. Brase explained in a statement last month that state Health Department officials are now seeking exemption for the so called "DNA Warehouse" from Minnesota privacy law. This would enable state officials to continue to take the DNA of newborn infants without consent.

Essentially this would mean that eventually every person's DNA would be collected at birth, warehoused by the state in what is known as a "genomic biobank", and sold or given away to private or governmental genetic researchers, who may manipulate, alter or splice the DNA in any way they see fit.

Such information would represent a goldmine to employers, insurance companies, medical institutions, and big pharma.

Under such conditions we are faced with the prospect of a society that is literally the mirror image of the nightmarish vision outlined by Aldous Huxley in his 1932 novel Brave New World, where individuals are categorized in a social hierarchy according to their genetic traits.

Watch Twila Brase explain the possible consequences of the pending DNA profiling legislation:

Ms. Brase has been warning of the ongoing move for a a number of years. In January 2007 she issued a written testimony to the Minnesota legislature on the unethical and hidden uses of harvested DNA by the state.

Read the 18 page PDF document here.

Recently, Minnesota based researcher and activist Marti Oakley revealed that, according to her polling, the majority of parents or grand parents of newborns have no idea that this is happening.

She writes:

    Further, not one knew that they had the right to demand the blood and tissue samples be destroyed after 45 days per written request. Even had they known, and the samples were destroyed (you would have no way of knowing if they really were) the information gleaned from them would still be available and on file.....in perpetuity.

    Also unknown to at least the new parents in Minnesota, is that once that 45 days has lapsed, the state now claims that they "own" the DNA of that child.

Though the Minnesota case has received recent public attention, such DNA harvesting is not restricted to that state and is being undertaken nationwide.

The National Conference of State Legislatures lists for all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, the various statutes or regulatory provisions under which newborns' DNA is being collected.

DNA of newborns has been harvested, tested, stored and experimented with by all 50 states. In addition, all 50 states are now routinely providing these results to the Department of Homeland Security.

In the UK, a similar DNA harvesting program was rejected in 2005 by The Human Genetics Commission, who cited cost and ethical problems in a report to government ministers.

However, DNA profiling of all newborn babies has since been called for by lawmakers and most recently by senior police officers.

Oppose the Minnesota Department of Health's refusal to fully inform parents

Currently, there is a monumental effort under way by The Citizens Council on Health Care to petition the state to oppose illegal State government ownership of the blood, DNA and genetic test results of newborn citizens in Minnesota. http://www.cchconline.org/petition/babyDNA2007.php

The CCHC is calling on Governor Tim Pawlenty to direct the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) to comply with Minnesota state privacy law, to fully inform parents of the genetic testing process and their legal rights–and to dismantle MDH's illegal warehouse of newborn citizen DNA. (Contact Sue Jeffers directly at: S1U2E3@aol.com )

For more resources on this issue visit the CCHC website.

[ReverendRyan]

I've said it once, I'll say it again:

Infowars is not a reputable news site.
They not only get shit wrong, but they make shit up, and then get the shit that they made up wrong too.

[Raineyrocks]

I've said it once, I'll say it again:

Infowars is not a reputable news site.
They not only get shit wrong, but they make shit up, and then get the shit that they made up wrong too.

I don't know why you seem to have something negative to write on almost all my posts today but here is another website if you skim the page you will find the bill #.  I'm not going to list every link to a post if you don't believe what I've posted then google it for yourself!

http://swfreedomlover.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/dna-health-eugenics-and-you/

[Ron Helwig]

I've said it once, I'll say it again:

Infowars is not a reputable news site.
They not only get shit wrong, but they make shit up, and then get the shit that they made up wrong too.

Not that I actually read it, but I scanned it and saw CCHC and Sue Jeffers. If they're saying there's something, I'd tend to believe its worth investigating.

Sue Jeffers was an LP governor candidate - I knew her back when I was in MN. CCHC has worked with the LPMN and seems to be a good group.

Of course seeing it on Infowars means it now can be dismissed as mere conspiracy theory by the masses.

[kola]

I've said it once, I'll say it again:

Infowars is not a reputable news site.
They not only get shit wrong, but they make shit up, and then get the shit that they made up wrong too.

I don't know why you seem to have something negative to write on almost all my posts today but here is another website if you skim the page you will find the bill #.  I'm not going to list every link to a post if you don't believe what I've posted then google it for yourself!

http://swfreedomlover.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/dna-health-eugenics-and-you/

rainey, disregard ryans ignorance..he rejects alex jones info but accept a quackdoc named stevie barrett.

kola

[Caleb]

I've said it once, I'll say it again:

Infowars is not a reputable news site.
They not only get shit wrong, but they make shit up, and then get the shit that they made up wrong too.

I don't know why you seem to have something negative to write on almost all my posts today but here is another website if you skim the page you will find the bill #.  I'm not going to list every link to a post if you don't believe what I've posted then google it for yourself!

http://swfreedomlover.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/dna-health-eugenics-and-you/

He does seem like he's latched onto you, and follows you around and makes snide comments on what you post.

There's a book called "I Don't Believe in Atheists", (I know, it's a really pathetic title; it seems like the type of title that a fundamentalist evangelical Christian would come up with, but I assure you this guy is an astute thinker, from a respectable Harvard seminary, so he's no bible thumper. I think the cheesy title is a tongue in cheek commentary on the thinking that he critiques in the book, but it's so cheesy that it means that his intended audience is likely never to pick it up.) This book is a really good read for understanding what's going on in the mind of people like Ryan. Hedges (the author) is able to demonstrate that the thinking in the so-called "New Atheist" movement is another sort of religious fundamentalism, of the exact same type that they find so distasteful. It'll put why Ryan follows you around and makes snide comments in perspective. He's basically a religious fanatic. And your posts undermine his religion. 

[Raineyrocks]

I've said it once, I'll say it again:

Infowars is not a reputable news site.
They not only get shit wrong, but they make shit up, and then get the shit that they made up wrong too.

I don't know why you seem to have something negative to write on almost all my posts today but here is another website if you skim the page you will find the bill #.  I'm not going to list every link to a post if you don't believe what I've posted then google it for yourself!

http://swfreedomlover.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/dna-health-eugenics-and-you/

rainey, disregard ryans ignorance..he rejects alex jones info but accept a quackdoc named stevie barrett.

kola

Thanks, it just started irking my nerves.  It was like as soon as I posted he responded with something cocky!

[Raineyrocks]

I've said it once, I'll say it again:

Infowars is not a reputable news site.
They not only get shit wrong, but they make shit up, and then get the shit that they made up wrong too.

I don't know why you seem to have something negative to write on almost all my posts today but here is another website if you skim the page you will find the bill #.  I'm not going to list every link to a post if you don't believe what I've posted then google it for yourself!

http://swfreedomlover.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/dna-health-eugenics-and-you/

He does seem like he's latched onto you, and follows you around and makes snide comments on what you post.

There's a book called "I Don't Believe in Atheists", (I know, it's a really pathetic title; it seems like the type of title that a fundamentalist evangelical Christian would come up with, but I assure you this guy is an astute thinker, from a respectable Harvard seminary, so he's no bible thumper. I think the cheesy title is a tongue in cheek commentary on the thinking that he critiques in the book, but it's so cheesy that it means that his intended audience is likely never to pick it up.) This book is a really good read for understanding what's going on in the mind of people like Ryan. Hedges (the author) is able to demonstrate that the thinking in the so-called "New Atheist" movement is another sort of religious fundamentalism, of the exact same type that they find so distasteful. It'll put why Ryan follows you around and makes snide comments in perspective. He's basically a religious fanatic. And your posts undermine his religion. 

I like the title, it's original then again I like things that go against the "norm".   I'm glad you see what I saw with my posts, for a second I was wondering if I was just being sensitive instead of targeted.

I'm so glad you simplified your post for me, I was in the middle of reading it and I was getting very confused then I started thinking, gosh I don't want to post my , "can you please explain it for me simpler" .   Wow I never took him as a fanatic but then again maybe his screen name should've clued me in.  Do you think I post too much stuff that makes me look like I don't believe in God?  I do believe I just don't understand so many things about the bible and religions.

Anyways, thanks for explaining that to me Caleb!

[Caleb]

No, you post a lot on subject that explore possibilities. You keep an open mind about things, and don't see things in black and white.

Ryan is a close-minded atheist. He feels a need to convert everyone to his close-minded atheism. So take the example of ghosts. He doesn't have a worldview that let's him believe that those types of things could exist. When you post something that shows a possibility that they do exist, he has to challenge that and comfort himself in his belief that ghosts can't exist. And so to keep people from challenging his beliefs, he also needs to convert you to his beliefs.

Ryan is actually a very generous "New Atheist". Some of them, like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, believe that a person who believes certain things should be killed just for believing them. Ryan hasn't suggested anything like that just yet.

[Raineyrocks]

No, you post a lot on subject that explore possibilities. You keep an open mind about things, and don't see things in black and white.

Ryan is a close-minded atheist. He feels a need to convert everyone to his close-minded atheism. So take the example of ghosts. He doesn't have a worldview that let's him believe that those types of things could exist. When you post something that shows a possibility that they do exist, he has to challenge that and comfort himself in his belief that ghosts can't exist. And so to keep people from challenging his beliefs, he also needs to convert you to his beliefs.

Ryan is actually a very generous "New Atheist". Some of them, like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, believe that a person who believes certain things should be killed just for believing them. Ryan hasn't suggested anything like that just yet.

Oh, Okay I get it now Caleb, thanks!  Geesh I have never heard of New Atheist or anything and your right he sounds very nice compared to those other 2 guys.  I actually misunderstood your first post to mean he was very religious and that's why I wrote what I did about his screen name.
I get on my nerves so bad but there's no escaping myself!     I don't understand why such simple things confuse me unless I was the twin my mom dropped yet I get Quantum Physics pretty good.

[ReverendRyan]

No, you post a lot on subject that explore possibilities. You keep an open mind about things, and don't see things in black and white.

Ryan is a close-minded atheist. He feels a need to convert everyone to his close-minded atheism. So take the example of ghosts. He doesn't have a worldview that let's him believe that those types of things could exist. When you post something that shows a possibility that they do exist, he has to challenge that and comfort himself in his belief that ghosts can't exist. And so to keep people from challenging his beliefs, he also needs to convert you to his beliefs.

Ryan is actually a very generous "New Atheist". Some of them, like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, believe that a person who believes certain things should be killed just for believing them. Ryan hasn't suggested anything like that just yet.

Wrong on all accounts. I just refuse to believe something that provides me no reason to believe it (evidence). I'm very open-minded, show me evidence and it will change my mind.

But when a new claims is made, the onus is on the claimant to provide evidence. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

As far as your ghost example, I for one would prefer to believe that they do exist. I would also prefer to believe in a god, heaven, etc., as it would be extremely comforting. However, I can't force myself to believe something without having a good reason to do so.

Which brings me to my first post on this thread. I was pointing out that Alex Jones is more a conspiracy apologist than a newsman. He does excellent coverage on some things, but then goes batshit crazy on others. And due to his erratic reasoning at times, he is not reliable as a primary source. It would be immensely more convincing to me and many others if a more reputable primary source is cited.

You provided a quinary source, that is, 5 times removed. I had to read through 4 different blog posts before I was linked to the actual article. A source of a source of a source of a source of a source is bound to screw stuff up. Ever play that kid's game telephone?

All I was asking for was a reputable primary source. Only when that is shown can one make an informed decision, rather than following hearsay like the rest of the mob. I was finally able to link back to that source, and guess what? It changed my mind 

[kola]

Ryan, are you going to accept the truth regarding Quackdoc Barretts REAL life and history?

[ReverendRyan]

Ryan, are you going to accept the truth regarding Quackdoc Barretts REAL life and history?

Credible evidence, please? Since you refused to give it on the proper thread where I asked for it last, you fucking troll

[Raineyrocks]

No, you post a lot on subject that explore possibilities. You keep an open mind about things, and don't see things in black and white.

Ryan is a close-minded atheist. He feels a need to convert everyone to his close-minded atheism. So take the example of ghosts. He doesn't have a worldview that let's him believe that those types of things could exist. When you post something that shows a possibility that they do exist, he has to challenge that and comfort himself in his belief that ghosts can't exist. And so to keep people from challenging his beliefs, he also needs to convert you to his beliefs.

Ryan is actually a very generous "New Atheist". Some of them, like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, believe that a person who believes certain things should be killed just for believing them. Ryan hasn't suggested anything like that just yet.

Wrong on all accounts. I just refuse to believe something that provides me no reason to believe it (evidence). I'm very open-minded, show me evidence and it will change my mind.

But when a new claims is made, the onus is on the claimant to provide evidence. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

As far as your ghost example, I for one would prefer to believe that they do exist. I would also prefer to believe in a god, heaven, etc., as it would be extremely comforting. However, I can't force myself to believe something without having a good reason to do so.

Which brings me to my first post on this thread. I was pointing out that Alex Jones is more a conspiracy apologist than a newsman. He does excellent coverage on some things, but then goes batshit crazy on others. And due to his erratic reasoning at times, he is not reliable as a primary source. It would be immensely more convincing to me and many others if a more reputable primary source is cited.

You provided a quinary source, that is, 5 times removed. I had to read through 4 different blog posts before I was linked to the actual article. A source of a source of a source of a source of a source is bound to screw stuff up. Ever play that kid's game telephone?

All I was asking for was a reputable primary source. Only when that is shown can one make an informed decision, rather than following hearsay like the rest of the mob. I was finally able to link back to that source, and guess what? It changed my mind 

Wow, you sound like a fair person, thanks for explaining everything!   I guess it's just the way you put things I felt like I was being singled out but I'm sensitive sometimes too.

[kola]

Ryan, are you going to accept the truth regarding Quackdoc Barretts REAL life and history?

Credible evidence, please? Since you refused to give it on the proper thread where I asked for it last, you fucking troll

It is my belief that people can learn to disagree and still be friends.

as far as dr quack barrett, he is far from "credible evidence". if you would do a search you would find these things but you choose not to...and even if i present it, you will disregard it anyways won't you?

I find you quite puzzling (not to mantion "angry at the world") as you continue to ask for "valid science" and "accurate data" and "peer review studies" yet you bank on info from some halfassed doc who couldnt make the grade.

Kola