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

khoos said:
I'm concerned, because from what I read, they'll billing it as a way to prevent heritable diseases...
Mothers are given the opportunity to screen for several of these diseases prenatally. Some, like myself, choose to opt out. (My logic is this: The only reason they do this screening is to tell you so you can abort the child. I have no intention of aborting, no matter what the situation with regards to heritable diseases.)
Further, if it is a way to prevent heritable diseases, it is truly a small step away from eugenics.

LSlice said:
I fully stand by the immoral criminal comment. Even by the definition of law, a majority of police are ciminals, as they harass businesses that don't pay their protection money, (and do numerous other blatantly criminal things, but i doubt you would believe me)

SockPuppet said:

Source, please. I don't doubt that there are abusive police, but a majority?

LSlice said:

I should have said, a majority of police that I know personally.

LSlice said:
by the way:

http://www.wired.com/medtech/genetics/news/2008/05/newborn_screening

The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 (S.1858/H.R. 3825), signed into law on April 24, empowers a committee to provide guidelines to all states on how -- and for how long -- they should store blood.

bald_eagle said:

They're empowered to set up guidelines. Oh, noes! We're ruined!

LSlice said:
by the way:

http://www.wired.com/medtech/genetics/news/2008/05/newborn_screening

bald_eagle said:

They're empowered to set up guidelines. Oh, noes! We're ruined!

So that's entirely anecdotal? Because you are not going to be taken seriously here on that basis.

LSlice said:
Sockpuppet says:

There's little danger of that happening I feel.

LSlice said:

As I have pointed out, they will set up guidelines which dictate the receiving of federal funds if states comply. There is a provision that in the event of a national health emergency, the program becomes mandatory for all states.

`(h) National Contingency Plan for Newborn Screening-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and in consultation with the Associate Administrator, shall develop a national contingency plan for newborn screening for use in the event of a public health emergency.

`(2) REQUIREMENTS- The contingency plan developed under paragraph (1) shall include a plan for--

`(A) the collection and transport of specimens;

`(B) the shipment of specimens to State newborn screening laboratories;

`(C) the processing of specimens;

`(D) the reporting of screening results to physicians and families;

`(E) the diagnostic confirmation of positive screening results;

`(F) ensuring the availability of treatment and management resources;

`(G) educating families about newborn screening; and

`(H) carrying out other activities determined appropriate by the Secretary.

bald_eagle said:

The only federal funds I see that have anything to do with this are grants to institutions for carrying out this type of program. You make it sound as though they will have to comply in order to receive any federal funding.

And the provision in case of emergency is merely a plan to draw up a proposal in case of emergency. I don't see any mandatory compliance in it:

I can't tell whether you're intentionally misrepresenting the law or doing so out out ignorance.

Here is the text of the Senate version.

Most states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands now have their own mandatory newborn screening programs (in some states, such as Wyoming and Maryland, the screening is not mandatory). Because the federal government has set no national standard, screening requirements vary from state to state, as determined by individual state public health departments.

http://kidshealth.org/parent/system/medical/newborn_screening_tests.html

LSlice said:

Let's look at a historical example of how this works. Now, there is no national law that mandates the drinking age to be 21. However, there are laws that offer federal funding to states, but only if they have a drinking age of 21. Not wanting to be left out, all states have the same law.

http://www.federalgrantswire.com/enforcing-underage-drinking-laws-program.html

bald_eagle said:

This law simply does not do what you represented that it does.
1) It does not provide for mandatory compliance in the event of a health emergency.
2) It does not tie federal funding for anything other than grants under this specific law to meeting guidelines.

Coming up with a tortured analogy doesn't change the fact that you made untrue allegations about what this law does.

LSlice said:

On point 2, yes. I didn't argue otherwise. On Point 1) No, adoption of the guidelines would be mandatory. You are correct that is not explicit in the bill that the recommended guidelines wil include mandatory screening, but since that is the way the majority of the states mandate it, it if highly probable those will be the guidelines that are adopted.

On a more general point, do you often read congressional bills? They are rarely transparent.