You might not have noticed, but the government authorized a mandatory DNA database for all newborns

This is the bill that was made law this april, S. 1858
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1858

Called the "Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007", the bill creates federal standards for grant funding to hospitals that has specific guidelines on how they collect genetic information. That in and of itself, might seem fairly harmless. However, according to a legal analysis doen by the Citizen's Council on Health Care, http://www.cchconline.org/,

The bill violates the U.S. Constitution and the Nuremberg Code, writes Twila Brase, president of the Citizen's Council on Health Care (CCHC). "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," she states. "It does not require consent and there are no requirements to inform parents about the warehousing of their child's DNA for the purpose of genetic research. Already, in Minnesota, the state health department reports that 42,210 children of the 780,000 whose DNA is housed in the Minnesota 'DNA warehouse' have been subjected to genetic research without their parents' knowledge or consent."



As part of the bill, a "national contingency plan" has been developed to make the genetic screening mandatory, and establish a means of database co-ordination between local, state, and federal governments in the event of a national health emergency.

In my opinion, while this may seem harmless, it seems as though on a routine basis, the information acces we are granting the government grows and grows. And this one doesn't even have anything to do with terrorism.

fuckin' Mutant Registration Act, maaaaannnn!

Does this mean Captain America is going to get shot again?

I find this sort of thing alarming. And so very, very wrong. The government has no right to collect information from us.

It's yet another source of power for them, with little to no benefit for the people.

How can it govern, if it doesn't know what it's governing?

I hope you are being facetious. I can never tell with the Englandish.

No I'm not. Serious question.

I am sorry but reading the House and Senate versions and am unable to find any references to DNA or a database beyond a "Clearinghouse of Newborn Screening Information."

The details of the 'Clearinghouse of Newborn Screening Information" follow and they are not Orwellian at all

is not a legal analisis but rather a press release, as noted in top left corner of the page.

The bill's purpose is

note it is a change to an existing law (read the complete bill in the links above) that is to increase the testing and screening of newborns.

Please provide a link or source for the DNA database, storage of DNA with any identifiers back to a person, or anything that we should cause us to be alarmed.

Would you be for or against this is a better question. I realize you live in a country where privacy is largely a thing of the past, but this type of information could affect your whole life.

even now, if you (anyone over the age of 10) are arrested for something, a sample of your dna is taken, and kept, even if you are not subsequently charged. I realise that this isn't quite the same kind of thing... but it gives me the willies, all the same.

Yes not to mention with your genetic profile they can see what diseases you may have companies will get their hands on it and they may not hire you due to your genetic traits. Sounds crazy but a company won't put time and effort into hiring someone who is predisposed to alcoholism or heart disease or cancer as it may cost them down the road.

the Home Office say there are currently no plans to extend the database to the whole population, but... I'm hesitant to believe that, long term.

and the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers wants to put primary school children (ie 10 year olds and younger) should be eligible for the DNA database if they exhibit behaviour indicating they may become criminals in later life.

Evil Gubbment thought of that. Seems they all agree....

yeah, I noticed that story. seems quite promising.

Government need not be evil to accomplish awful things. All they need to be is inept. And the bigger it gets, the more inept it gets.

Giving the federal gov't access to our DNA can only do harm.

EDIT: I don't have a problem with a civil rights bill. That's really all government needs to do - ratify what we can all agree to as our rights, then protect those rights. They do not need our DNA to protect us from genetic discrimination.

Although this might seem like a good idea, the government having all this information about every one in the States will make Eugenics a lot more easy and effective. We have had Eugenics before in this nation we can easily have it again with out realizing it.

But if you don't mind selling out your morals there is a good amount of money to be made since the company that is setting up all of the servers to store the information is currently small they are about to boom so I am sure their stocks are going to go high.

But without major financial penalties that eliminate any possible benefit to the insurance companies from violating the law they (insurance) will push/cross the line/break the law.

I have little faith in the inherent goodness of my fellow human and none when money is involved.

You are more dogmatic than a TV evangelist. Your arguments are completely without logic, and instead built on 100% pure false assumptions. Everything is always black and white with you. Government ALWAYS bad, uncontrolled capitalism ALWAYS good. I guess that would work if bizarro absolute land actually existed, but, unfortunately for you, there's this little thing called reality that constantly seems to contradict your suppositions. You sound like the parrot from a RP campaign office. Please, try a little more actual though and

So, better to have no law of any kind on the books and let the companies do whatever the fuck they want? Not sure if I follow here.

The census should be enough.

We are better off with the law than without the law. However if the cost of breaking the law is lower than the gain (by breaking it) than the insurance companies will break the law.

Word

Any information the government gathers can be misused. Going by what IDGAS found, this may not be as sensational as the OP suggested. But I agree that the trend seems to be going in a direction that makes me uncomfortable.

And I'm always suspicious when medical folks undertake a "legal analysis."

A civil rights law to protect us from genetic discrimination is not a bad idea.

A DNA database, however, is definitely bad.

I never said "uncontrolled capitalism always good."

I think the idea of government controlling capitalists is what's unrealistic. They will always be in bed with business. This is why I don't approve of any regulation whatsoever; these are used to manipulate markets for either the benefit of particular businesses, or the Treasury, but never the people.

Nike or McDonald's cannot force anyone to buy their products. They may employ dirty advertising gimmicks, they may buy out local businesses, but they have no authority over us. We buy their shit because, apparently, we like their shit, even if it's not good for us, or not good for working Mexicans or whoever.

We can be forced, however, to support Halliburton, Enron, ADM, and Baby Bells, because the authority in our lives helps run these businesses via agencies like the Dept of State, the Dept of Energy, the Dept of Agriculture, and the FCC. Our tax money helps fund these companies, essentially, whether that's through subsidies, licenses to restrict competition, or other regulatory ruses. Electing a Dem does not fix the problem either - in the above cases alone, a vote for Obama is just fine for ADM and the Bells, for example. And I think of both of those entities as dirty crooks.

I think it is foolish to expect government to champion fair business and clean air. That's OUR job, and we have let government take away this responsibility from us with nothing to show for it. It does not surprise me that public education doesn't bother teaching Economics in high school. You have to go to college to learn about how the system favors the few over the majority.