Rand Paul wins victory for Parents

[NACBA]

POSTED BY Norm Singleton December 18, 2014

Newborn screening for medical disorders is becoming an increasingly common practice. This seems like a good thing; however, along with the potential benefits of screening, there are concerns that some states are not obtaining parental consent before doing the screening. There are also legitimate concerns that state governments will store the child's DNA in a database.

No one should be surprised to learn that there is a federal program funding newborn screening, and readers of this blog should not be surprised to learn that legislation extending this program was rammed into law in the lame duck session of Congress.

http://www.campaignforliberty.org/ra...ictory-parents

[tangent4ronpaul]

Rand really blew it on this one.

However, Senator Rand Paul was successful in getting a victory for parents' rights by attaching an amendment to the bill forbidding the use of a newborn's blood spots in federally funded medical research without parental consent.

For one, this is going to result in parents being handed a bunch of paperwork to sign with this permission hidden in the fine print.

The other MAJOR problems is that gene sequencing is getting cheaper and cheaper so everyones DNA fingerprint is going to end up in FBI databases for them to datamine. It's also going to destroy families if they go on social assistance and the bundle of joy isn't the dads - which actually happens a lot, so the state could go after someone else for child support payments in order to save money, resulting in divorces.

-t

[specsaregood]

Rand really blew it on this one.
For one, this is going to result in parents being handed a bunch of paperwork to sign with this permission hidden in the fine print.

The other MAJOR problems is that gene sequencing is getting cheaper and cheaper so everyones DNA fingerprint is going to end up in FBI databases for them to datamine. It's also going to destroy families if they go on social assistance and the bundle of joy isn't the dads - which actually happens a lot, so the state could go after someone else for child support payments in order to save money, resulting in divorces.

-t

so Randal "blew it" by altering something that was going to pass anyways and amending it to require parental consent whereas without his amendment no parental consent would be required?

So without Randal "blowing it", parents would not have the power to say "no"
With Randal "blowing it", parents now have to opt-in otherwise it doesn't happen.

And you think he "blew it", is that your position?

[tangent4ronpaul]

It's not going to have any effect unless the parents know they have this right. It will be hidden in the fine print.

He blew it by not adding that it couldn't be used for ANY function besides early life tests and that it had to be destroyed after 3 months. This leaves the door open for a universal DNA database.

-t

[Natural Citizen]

Junior did the right thing the best that he could here, I think. Nobody else would introduce this stuff.

[specsaregood]

It's not going to have any effect unless the parents know they have this right. It will be hidden in the fine print.

Well, its tough to protect people that won't read the fine print.

He blew it by not adding that it couldn't be used for ANY function besides early life tests and that it had to be destroyed after 3 months. This leaves the door open for a universal DNA database.
-t

which would have most likely gotten his amendment rejected.

[Inkblots]

Well done, Rand. It's not flashy, but this is exactly the kind of thing we need "Liberty" congressmen looking out for and catching.

[roho76]

It's not going to have any effect unless the parents know they have this right. It will be hidden in the fine print.

He blew it by not adding that it couldn't be used for ANY function besides early life tests and that it had to be destroyed after 3 months. This leaves the door open for a universal DNA database.

-t

You can't protect the stupid from themselves. I feel your barking up the wrong tree here. What have you done to protect parental rights? I didn't think so.

[William Tell]

This is a big deal to me, bravo Rand!

[FriedChicken]

Rand really blew it on this one.



For one, this is going to result in parents being handed a bunch of paperwork to sign with this permission hidden in the fine print.

The other MAJOR problems is that gene sequencing is getting cheaper and cheaper so everyones DNA fingerprint is going to end up in FBI databases for them to datamine. It's also going to destroy families if they go on social assistance and the bundle of joy isn't the dads - which actually happens a lot, so the state could go after someone else for child support payments in order to save money, resulting in divorces.

-t

I must admit that I find the specific reference to medical research troubling. My hope is that the other forms of data collection already require consent.
Otherwise I'm thrilled to death that someone finally made an issue out of this!

Indiana has it law that all babies are not allowed to leave the hospital without the screening. The blood is allowed to be saved but but have any association to the child's identity destroyed ... but there isn't a defined process to my knowledge or any accountability.