TheAgitator.com
Creepy Government Database Watch
Tuesday, February 16th, 2010CNN reports has a story on parents who are fighting state efforts to keep newborn DNA on file after the child is tested for genetic defects.
The genetic tests are done without the parents’ consent, and some states then keep the DNA profiles for years. State laws vary on length of time the samples are kept, from just a few days in many states; to Indiana and New Jersey’s oddly specific 23-year cutoff; to California and Florida, which keep the DNA “indefinitely.”
States also vary on whether the newborns’ names are attached to the samples, and the procedures by which the DNA profiles are loaned out to academic researchers.
“In other news, the school nurse will be coming around to collect DNA samples.” – Daria
This one is definitely crappy, though a bit lower on my radar than some of the other horrible things done in our current maternity care system (court-ordered c-sections, doctor-coerced consent instead of actual informed consent, etc).
The really frustrating thing about this specifically, though, is that in many cases it’s nearly impossible to opt out. You can opt out of most things (for instance, eye antibiotics for the baby aren’t necessary if the mom doesn’t have STDs). The PKU testing, though, is pushed so hard I know of quite a few instances where parents have tried to opt out and child services gets called in. And I understand that a lot of babies’ lives are saved by knowing about these rare diseases, but there isn’t really a good way to do it without giving up a heck of a lot of info about your kid to the hospital and/or the state.
It drives me nuts personally because I like to leave the hospital ASAP after having a baby for various reasons, but get treated like I am insane because this test is MANDATORY! YOU HAVE TO DO IT! And it can’t be done until 24 hours have passed. So in order to get away from the uncomfortable beds, crappy food, and invasive nursing care, I have to take the baby into a hospital a few days later for a test that puts the results entirely out of my control under threat of child protective services being called. I wish there were a better way to do these screenings (perhaps private companies who had a stake in the privacy concerns and comfort of the baby and parent?) but at least in my area it is one hoop you pretty much just have to jump through and deal.
This was in the news for a little while when Bush signed this legislation into law but it didn’t get much attention.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/16/tim.masters.settlement/index.html?hpt=T2
In Colorado – guy wrongly convicted and imprisoned for 10 years gets a $4.1M settlement. All the evidence at trial was circumstantial, including an “expert” witness who claimed that he fit the profile of a sexual predator. I swear, we’ve come nowhere since the Salem witch trials.
Okay, sorry to continue the threadjack, but this is just amazing. This is an earlier story about Tim Masters, the guy I mentioned in #4:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/01/masters.gifts/index.html
It seems that one of the cops and two of the prosecutors involved with railroading him are being investigated for other shenanigans:
This, folks, is why the garbage needs to be taken out as early as possible. It’s not going to clean up its own act, and the longer you let the maggots fester, the more harm they’ll do. What a mess.
I haven’t looked to see what’s come of the above cases, but they may be resolved by now.
If those babies have done nothing wrong, they should have nothing to hide.
Dave,
Bullshit, they are parading around naked in front of other people, including other babies. They are level 3 sex offenders.
Michael Chaney: at least maggots clean out the wounds. These f**ers are a disease that keeps on growing.
When our daughter was born, I was very intent on knowing exactly what data they were taking and were it was going. Most of the nurses thought I was a nutcase because I was concerned about this. Relatedly, I have a severe family history of a certain cancer that requires me to be tested frequently. My doctor wants me to take a genetic screen, but I refuse. The reason being that once I take that screen and it becomes part of my medical record, any health or life insurance will have access to it in order to evaluate my risk profile.
“The reason being that once I take that screen and it becomes part of my medical record, any health or life insurance will have access to it in order to evaluate my risk profile.”
And there you have it, the real reason why this is being done. And it sure as hell isn’t for your benefit.
This smells a lot like the eugenics movement reborn.
Shocker! Sean Bell’s killers get off with no charges.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/16/new.york.groom.shooting/index.html
I know. I was out shooting last weekend and accidentally put 40 rounds into someone’s car before I could stop. Yeah, the gun just shoots itself.
One can only hope that DNA database searches start fingering babies as suspects in violent crimes. Maybe then someone will start thinking rationally about this stuff.
The fact that Sean Bell’s killers did not get convicted on civil rights charges is appropriate: you have to show very specific intent. What is NOT appropriate is that putting 40 rounds into an unarmed man does not trigger multiple OTHER bases of prosecution. In other words, the fact that the prosecution couldnt show that the cops were members of the KKK who deliberately kill black people should not absolve them of at least manslaughter.
Does the results of the involuntary DNA typing of newborn infants then get shared with the FBI’s DNA database: AEFIS?
How handy and marvelously efficient to involuntarily take a baby’s DNA sample at birth, rather than wait for a felony arrest to take a DNA sample….
SJE – I have to agree that the civil rights charges aren’t exactly appropriate. In cases like that, though, we generally have the choice between “inappropriate federal charges” and “nothing”. I’ll take option #1. The third option, “county DA does the right thing and charges the officers with at least manslaughter”, is so rare that it’s not worth discussing.
Actually, ALowe, this has already happened! In a cold case from the 70′s (might be the late 60′s) in Michigan, detectives and lab people found viable semen samples taken as swabs from a rape/murder and matched it to a known felon (who just happened to have been a small child at the time of the murder-oops.) They then got new samples from skin sells on her nylons and matched it to a felon who was a grown man at the time. He was convicted, even though the whole semen from a small child scenario was brought up by his attorney. There was never any good explanation of why one match is obviously a “mistake”, but another must be the truth!
My wife and I had our son at home last year. We refused every antibiotic, vaccine, and test except those “required” by government. I had no problem doing the required hearing screening, that makes sense. We did do the PKU test after every assurance was given over the security and anonymity of the process. I really should have done more research.
As an expecting mother, I’ve asked my doctor to look into this, whether we can opt-out and who the DNA is shared with. Luckily my OBGYN is about my age with similar political leanings and appeared to be very interested to look into it for me.
I’m concerned for a number of reasons, but the one that stands out currently is the issue of familial DNA searches for crime investigating.
http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/2524454.html
Theoretically, if a family member committed a crime and left DNA evidence, police may be able to search these databases, potentially subjecting my child to arrest or interrogation. Currently, only California and Colorado has specifically legalized such searches (Maryland has banned them), but it seems these days that anything California practices, Washington is soon to adopt.
This story is being misreported by people who watch too many CSI episodes. State neonatal testing labs do not perform forensic-level DNA profiling tests on babies. They perform specific tests for a few genetic diseases. This testing provides no useful forensic information but can save the lives or brains of the babies.
The issue of concern is that some states are permanently saving the babies’ blood samples. Clinical laboratories usually dispose of samples when they are too old for testing or when they are no longer needed. However, appropriately stored dried blood specimens can be used forever for forensic DNA testing. This implies that if you are a suspect, the state can perform DNA profile testing on your neonatal blood specimen. The District Attorney would need a court order only to test your old blood, which is easier to get than a court order to collect a fresh specimen from you.
Once again, a useful public health purpose is hijacked by the state for law enforcement purposes. This will invariably lead to resistance against testing by parents and failures to diagnose genetic diseases before they harm or kill their babies.