Slightly off topic but this is important for all in the US to know

[Guest guest]

You can contact me personally if you want to talk about it:

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view & pageId=60643

>

> Government stakes claim to every newborn's DNA

> 'We now are considered guinea pigs, instead of human beings with

rights'

> April 03, 2008

>

> By Bob Unruh

> © 2008 WorldNetDaily

> An Orwellian plan that has state and federal governments staking

claim to

> the ownership of every newborn's DNA in perpetuity is advancing

under the

> radar of most privacy rights activists, but would turn the United

States'

> citizenry into a huge pool of subjects for involuntary scientific

> experimentation, according to one organization alarmed over the

issue.

> " We now are considered guinea pigs, as opposed to human beings with

> rights, " Twila Brase, president of the the Citizens' Council on

Health Care,

> a Minnesota-based organization familiar with the progress in that

state.

> She warned ultimately, such DNA databases could spark the next wave

of

> demands for eugenics, the concept of improving the human race

through the

> control of various inherited traits. Margaret Sanger, founder of

Planned

> Parenthood, advocated for eugenics to cull those she considered

unfit from

> the population.

> In 1921, she said eugenics is " the most adequate and thorough

avenue to

> the solution of racial, political and social problems, " and she

later

> lamented " the ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human

beings

> who never should have been born at all. "

> Lawmakers in Minnesota recently endorsed a proposal that would

exempt

> stockpiles of DNA information already being collected from every

newborn

> there from any sort of consent requirements, meaning researchers

could

> utilize the DNA of more than 780,000 Minnesota children for any

sort of

> research project whatsover, Brase said.

> " The Senate just voted to strip citizens of parental rights, privacy

> rights, patient rights and DNA property rights. They voted to make

every

> citizen a research subject of the state government, starting at

birth, " she

> said. " They voted to let the government create genetic profiles of

every

> citizen without their consent. "

> The result will be that every newborn's DNA will be collected at

birth,

> " warehoused in a state genomic biobank, and given away to genetic

> researchers without parent consent - or in adulthood, without the

> individual's consent. Already, the health department reports that

42, 210

> children have been subjected to genetic research without their

consent, "

> Brase told WND.

> She said although her organization works with Minnesota issues,

similar

> laws or rules and regulations already are in use pretty much all

across the

> nation.

> The National Conference of State Legislatures, in fact, 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.

> Such programs are offered as " screening " requirements to detect

treatable

> illnesses. They vary as to exactly what tests are done but the

Health

> Resources and Services Administration has requested a report that

would

> " include a recommendation for a uniform panel of conditions. "

> Further, <http://dodd.senate.gov/>Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., is on

record

> proposing a plan that would turn the program into a consolidated

nationwide

> effort.

> " Fortunately, " he said at the time, " some newborn screening occurs

in

> every state but fewer than half of the states, including

Connecticut,

> actually tests for all disorders that are detectable. ... This

legislation

> will provide resources for states to expand their newborn screening

> programs... "

> His plan specifically would provide millions of dollars for

educating and

> training health care professionals in " relevant technologies, " and

set up

> standards for updating tests and maintaining the quality of test

results.

> So what's the big deal about looking into DNA to hunt for various

disease

> possibilities?

> Nothing, said Brase, if that's where the hunt would end.

> However, she said, " researchers already are looking for genes

related to

> violence, crime and different behaviors. "

> " This isn't just about diabetes, asthma and cancer, " she

said. " It's also

> about behavioral issues. "

> " In England they decided they should have doctors looking for

problem

> children, and have those children reported, and their DNA taken in

case they

> would become criminals, " she said.

> In fact, published reports in the United Kingdom note that senior

police

> forensics experts believe genetic samples should be studied because

it may

> be possible to identify potential criminals as young as age five.

> " If we have a primary means of identifying people before they

offend, then

> in the long-term the benefits of targeting younger people are

extremely

> large, " Gary Pugh, director of forensics at Scotland Yard, was

quoted

> saying. " You could argue the younger the better. Criminologists say

some

> people will grow out of crime; others won't. We have to find who are

> possibly going to be the biggest threat to society. "

> The United Kingdom database already has 4.5 million genetic samples

and

> reportedly is the largest in Europe, but activists want to expand

it. Pugh

> said that it is not possible right now to demand everyone provide a

DNA

> sample, but only because of the costs and logistics.

> One published report cited the Institute for Public Policy

Research, which

> is suggesting children from 5-12 in the United Kingdom be targeted

with

> cognitive behavioral therapy and Pugh has suggested adding the

children in

> primary schools, even if they have not offended, to the database.

> There, Chris Davis of the National Primary Headteachers' Association

> warned the move could be seen " as a step towards a police state. "

> But Pugh said the UK's annual cost of $26 billion from violent

crime makes

> it well worth the effort.

> Brase said such efforts to study traits and gene factors and

classify

> people would be just the beginning. What could happen through

subsequent

> programs to address such conditions, she wondered.

> " Not all research is great, " she said. " There is research that is

highly

> objectionable into the genetic propensities of an individual. Not

all

> research should be hailed as wonderful initiatives. "

> It can identify some tendencies for potential problems, and that is

one of

> its downfalls, she said.

> " It lends itself to be the beginning of discrimination and

prejudice, " she

> said. " People can look at data about you and make assessments

ultimately of

> who you are. "

> Further, the invasion of privacy is huge. DNA is the most intimate

> identifier that exists, she said.

> " This, however, says our DNA is not ours but the government's, " she

said.

> " It says our values, our ethics, belief systems have to be

[subjected] to

> the interests of the government. "

> Right now various states obtain DNA under different plans, and keep

the

> information for varying time periods. In Minnesota, the legislature

is

> working on legal authorization for the state government to take it

without

> consent, keep it forever, and use it for whatever purposes the

state desires

> - all without obtaining consent or even letting people know.

> A mandatory sample of a newborn's DNA also pulls back the veil on

> information about the parents as well, Brase told WND.

> " It's like they're collecting information on the whole family, " she

said.

> The Heartland Regional Genetics and Newborn Screening is one of the

> organizations that advocates for more screening and research.

> It proclaims in its vision statement a desire to see newborns

screened for

> 200 conditions. It also forecasts " every student ... with an

individual

> program for education based on confidential interpretation of their

family

> medical history, their brain imaging, their genetic predictors of

best

> learning methods... "

> Further, every individual should share information about " personal

and

> family health histories " as well as " gene tests for recessive

conditions and

> drug metabolism " with the " other parent of their future children. "

> Still further, it seeks " ecogenetic research that could improve

health,

> lessen disability, and lower costs for sickness. "

> " They want to test every child for 200 conditions, take the child's

> history and a brain image, and genetics, and come up with a plan

for that

> child, " Brase said. " They want to learn their weaknesses and

defects.

> " Nobody including and especially the government should be allowed to

> create such extensive profiles, " she said.

> The next step is obvious: The government, with information about

potential

> health weaknesses, could say to couples, " We don't want your

expensive

> children, " she said.

> " I think people have forgotten about eugenics, the fact of the

matter is

> that the eugenicists have not gone away. Newborn genetic testing is

the

> entry into the 21st Century version of eugenics, " she said.

> " This is in every state, but nobody is talking about it. Parents

have no

> idea this is happening, " she said.