What is the punishment for not blood testing in Indiana?

[FriedChicken]

Found this on the In.gov website:

Indiana's newborn screening law requires that every baby born in Indiana be tested for 47 conditions (including sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, hearing loss, and critical congenital heart disease). Newborn screening must be done before the baby leaves the hospital. Babies born at home must have newborn screening within one week of birth. (emphasis mine)
Source: http://www.in.gov/isdh/20215.htm

Here is a link to the Indiana law regarding the topic: http://www.ai.org/legislative/ic/code/title16/ar41/ch17.html

I haven't read the entire law front to back but have done some pretty intense skimming and I can't find anything to back up the claim made in bold letters. The words "home" and "week" are never even used (did a word search) and there isn't an explicit deadline other than as soon as possible.


But anyway my question is this .......

Apparently any parent who chooses not have their child tested for these 47 diseases is breaking the law/taking part in a criminal act/committing a crime.
How do I learn what charges would be, supposedly, be brought against the parent? I have a great interest in learning how serious of an infraction this is. (what class of misdemeanor or whatever).

I have no problem with blood tests, I think that they're a wise thing to do. But I am against preemptive care and tests being mandated by authorities. (I'm also, obviously, against the state funding the tests - though I realize they pretty much have to fund them if they're going to make them mandatory.)



--

The reason I want to learn this is for educating people on how easy it is to break the law without realizing it. My wife and I broke this law unknowingly with our son - he hasn't been to the hospital before because he's never been ill (he wasn't born in a hospital). We could bring him in for a check up but I didn't see the point since he is healthy and hospitals are full of sick people and that would seem to be needless exposure.

I want to be able to point out to people that, technically, we're guilty of a class [fill in blank] misdemeanor punishable by up to [fill in the blank] to maybe help drive home the point that just because something is a good idea doesn't mean it should be mandated.
It also helps spark some healthy debate about if the state should even have the authority to mandate medical tests.

[AFPVet]

(d) If a parent of an infant objects in writing, for reasons pertaining to religious beliefs only, the infant is exempt from the examinations required by this chapter.

I don't see how refusing would be neglect of a dependent anyways. It's like with vaccinations.... There is also a religious exception. The only thing they can use to charge you would be neglect of a dependent (felony); however, they would have to prove that you placed the child's life or health in jeopardy.

[CPUd]

There should be a provision to opt out of it for religious reasons.

In TN, we have people living in the mountains- in their churches, people carry poisonous snakes, and if someone gets bit, they won't go to the hospital. Everyone will pray and say if he dies, it's God's will. Needless to say, they generally don't do immunizations or doctors. Every couple of years, there is a story in the papers about someone dying, and they always write about the kids. But all the state colleges require various vaccination records, with the exception that if your church forbids it, you have to get a waiver signed by your pastor.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Not sure what the exact penalty would be but I can almost guarantee you will have CPS at your door within days.

[FriedChicken]

I don't see how refusing would be neglect of a dependent anyways. It's like with vaccinations.... There is also a religious exception. The only thing they can use to charge you would be neglect of a dependent (felony); however, they would have to prove that you placed the child's life or health in jeopardy.

Hmm... if a child dies from one of the 47 diseases and turns out to not have been tested I can see the hospital turning the information over to the state for investigation - sounds like that might end up with neglect charges.


There should be a provision to opt out of it for religious reasons.

In TN, we have people living in the mountains- in their churches, people carry poisonous snakes, and if someone gets bit, they won't go to the hospital. Everyone will pray and say if he dies, it's God's will. Needless to say, they generally don't do immunizations or doctors. Every couple of years, there is a story in the papers about someone dying, and they always write about the kids. But all the state colleges require various vaccination records, with the exception that if your church forbids it, you have to get a waiver signed by your pastor.

Yes, there is. It is the only reason people are allowed to opt out and requires a signed letter of explanation from the parents. Its and easy loop hole to step through if someone wishes to escape the tests but doesn't change the fact that the state is acting under the impression that the preemptive testing is their responsibility and not of the parents.


Not sure what the exact penalty would be but I can almost guarantee you will have CPS at your door within days.

The state DOES keep a database of everyone that has done the testing but I find it hard to believe that CPS filters the list of recent birth certificates to the the database. I think they'd show up if your child was diagnosed with one of the diseases that was suppose to be tested for.

An interesting fact is that the state assumes ownership of the "waste blood" (blood sample that has already been used for testing) but removes any identity associated with it first.

I think the mentality is all wrong - the state seems to think that has the authority to dictate preemptive care (its not all that far off from requiring vaccines, but definitely not the same thing) and they also think they're the rightful owners my child's blood.

Its making a mountain out of a mole hill as far as issues go but to me is a sign of a very presumptuous state.

Thanks for the help everyone.

[ghengis86]

WTF happened to going to the hospital (or staying home), having a baby delivered by your trusted doctor (or midwife), under your own terms, without any mandatory tests, forms, criminality, etc? Need a BC? Alright, names and place of mom and dad and there you go! None of this 47 page bullshit. How is it you can be a criminal for having a kid but not knowing the myriad of complex forms and laws? SERIOUSLY, WTF HAPPENED TO THIS COUNTRY? This is but one example.

[FriedChicken]

WTF happened to going to the hospital (or staying home), having a baby delivered by your trusted doctor (or midwife), under your own terms, without any mandatory tests, forms, criminality, etc? Need a BC? Alright, names and place of mom and dad and there you go! None of this 47 page bullshit. How is it you can be a criminal for having a kid but not knowing the myriad of complex forms and laws? SERIOUSLY, WTF HAPPENED TO THIS COUNTRY? This is but one example.

I agree.
I don't know when it became common for state legislators to pass these kinds of bills - I believe it has been common for a very long time though.

[oyarde]

I would just opt out if I were you, if I had any real medical concerns, I would pay the family Dr to do anything ( tests) he thought medically needed. That is what they are for, they know you and your family. I am old, my children are grown , I go to a Dr 20 miles away ( Bloomington ) twice a yr for a checkup , pay him cash , if I really needed to see someone, I would go to him. If I thought I was seriosly ill , I would drive to Lafayette Tenn and see the Menonite Dr there ( cash donation) .