May 2, 2008: Bush Signs Bill To Take All Newborns' DNA

NO!

It's not good to be right sometimes. Trust me on this.

Check point #7 on my article from January 1 of this year:

'Ten Strange Things That Could Happen to You Using Future Technology'

Damnit.

Make sure to hit your 'back' button and return here. I did not want to hijack this thread. But I think anyone voting for this article or commenting on it (and I encourage you to do this) should also see that article I listed above.

How does this fall into "unreasonable search and seizure?"

Do you think that is "unreasonable" to search the home of the uncle of Brook, a girl 12 years old that disappeard and that he was convicted previously as a pervert?

U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

You brought the Fourth Amendment.

Maybe that DNA collected at one time and not too long ago, Brook is only 12 years old, is helping to solve her case faster.

Bad is bad. Illegal is illegal. Even if something good eventually happens associated with a bad act, the act remains bad

I do predict this law will be challenged, work it way through the courts, and eventually get to The Supreme Court.

replytoj001

Avoid Avoid Avoid at all Cost

Nothing in the fourth ammendment prevents anyone from being searched, wiretapped, fingerprinted, ass-invaded, whatever- JUST GET A @!$%#ING WARRANT!

Once again George Bush and our legislative branch gets it all wrong. Waste of time and waste of money when they should be focusing on stem cell research. And I'm not talking about fetusus here folks. Stem cell research can be done without crushing up embryos.

When a child is born, their umbilical cord is full of wonderful stemcells. We need to put our money into storing the umbilical cords of all newborns in the event that they encounter a disease or accident in later life. Stem cell therapy can restore dibilitating diseases and injury. People with alzheimers, brain injury, cerebral palsy, polio; you name it, stem cell therapy can cure it.

My son, once a genius kid of 17, is a brain injury survivor because some drunk, doped-up idiot ran over him. 15 years later, my son struggles every day. And he will struggle the rest of his life. Stem cell therapy could make him whole again.

Think about the number of soldiers coming back from war with the "signature" wound of brain injury. We can help them. But nooooo........we go off down Fantasy Road throwing money around like rose petals.

Ya know, that's really funny, and seriously scary at the same time... *shakes head*

What has our country gotten itself into?

I was honest-to-God thinking of a midwife...

The collection of DNA at birth is a combination of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

The Good: As the database grows, matching up donors for organs or other transplants becomes easier. ID'ng unidentified bodies becomes easier, etc.

The Bad: The temptation to abuse the database becomes reality.

The Ugly: In the future, such a database could be used to make choices on who deserves expensive medical care and who does not, or insurance companies who make decisions using the database. The worst scenario would be a government, not necessarily the U.S., who uses the database as a way to determine victims for 'ethnic cleansing.'

Like the Holocaust...but without having to go through the bother of searching all the family records and doing a lot of paperwork.

I think the Bad and the Ugly far outweigh any possible Good.

yes i agree, however just because some one IS a match doesn't me they are going to do,and as far as i am concerned no one has the right to my childs information, or mine for that matter.

I think the Bad and the Ugly far outweigh any possible Good.

Agreed. The US is moving closer and closer to becoming a police state... void of all real freedom...

Yet it will still be declared the head of "the Free World."

All the while it's citizens will have little more freedom, if that, than under Saddam Hussein's regime.

This is also the first I have even heard about this law. At first I didn't believe it was real until I searched a few other sites. I had a difficult time believing this would be passed without the ACLU or others in an uproar. What happened? While I agree about it violating our constitutional rights to privacy, I am more concerned about what this information could be used by a government which could become more oppressive than we want to imagine at this point. Many Americans don't belive we could have a totalitarian government because we vote for our lawmakers. But we are continually giving up our rights. Some aparently without our knowledge, like this one. Man, have I been sleeping at the wheel.

Some aparently without our knowledge, like this one. Man, have I been sleeping at the wheel.

It's to early for drama. Don't you have blood test done? It's the same. Innocents were blamed in the past of crimes that did not commited. Therefore, I don't see the objection to start early.

JPark says "Don't feel bad about sleeping at the wheel. Asleep or awake, this vehicle doesn't want to stay on the road."

Hmm, why is that? I have often wondered why Americans who always boast of our freedoms, seem bound and determined to give those freedoms away. It's almost like our nation WANTS to be told what to do, as if that will protect them from the "evil stranger" or poverty. It doesn't help when legislators, well meaning or not, push for legislation to invade the intimate details of our lives and try to tell us what to do, or not do, or how to do it. This totally violates the principles that the founding fathers (and mothers) lived and died for. The scary thing is that the founding members warned of so many things that are currently wrong with our government, yet their warnings went unheeded. This is proably because most people today have never read about the lives and beliefs of the founding generation, except from a government sanctioned textbook - which distorts history and makes history or civics seem like a dry, boring topic. Yet we have many resouces at our hands to learn about our history, to learn how other governments have operated and their consequences, to learn about principles of government and so much more, but we remain content to allow the State to spoon-feed our kids what passes for education along with what ever the bias-for-the-day prevails in the teaching materials. (I should have mentioned we home educate our children - so you can see my bias). But even as adults, we fail to keep ourselved educated...kind of like I failed to know what kind of Bills were being considered in Congress.

Determined0a1 said "It's to early for drama. Don't you have blood test done? It's the same. Innocents were blamed in the past of crimes that did not commited. Therefore, I don't see the objection to start early."

Yes, DNA has been used to link people to crimes, or clear people from crimes. DNA research has also been used for scientific research - with some good and not so good results. HOWEVER (sorry, I am not yelling, I just don't know how to format on this blog yet.) Even these uses should have been done with informed consent given by the person. That's what the hullabaloo is about. Its not whether or not DNA is collected, its about being informed how the DNA will be used for now and in the future, and requiring consent for the collection and the uses of the DNA.

Blood tests are not the same, You have to consent to giving a blood specimen and informed what they are looking for, and should be told those results. Typically medical professionals are only looking at the composition of your blood (water to platelet to red cells to white cells ratios), electrolyte balance, hormones or other "indicators" to test for conditions. This information in your blood changes continually and therefore cannot be used to identify you, or predict genetic conditions. So it is a very different test from DNA testing. However, while it is possible someone could use your blood to collect DNA, they should not be able to do that without your informed consent.

However, the government having a database of people's DNA, taken without informed consent is trouble waiting to happen. Even with informed consent, I'm not sure that the government having that kind of information stored is such a great idea. Let's pretend that we trust our government implicitly. Who's to say that our government won't be threatened in the future? We could become a conquered people, there could be a devastating natural disaster, or even just having the UN gain more authority in our lives than even now. The point is, our government cannot guarantee that this information is safe from computer hackers, much less a threatening government or other source.

i don't think so. we are now looking at the future thought police.

I'm thinking the origins of Brave New World, once they combine everyone's pristine DNA they essentially create a class system based on people's DNA

too true JPark. lets face the truth here, that is not what it is going to be used for. just like his wire tapping, was just suppose to catch the "bad" guys right? well they are not getting my child's info. and as i said before just because some one is a match doesn't mean they are going to give the organs or blood. and in terms of crimes, no it won't. DNA helps but is not always enough. this is just one more way the government is trying to control us.

The end result of loss of freedom is never good.

We aren't going to last forever.

ok.......so does that mean that it is ok for the government to do whatever they want?

ok.......so does that mean that it is ok for the government to do whatever they want?

Our Congress is doing dumber laws by day, at least one could save lives.

please don't kid yourself into thinking that this is for "the greater good", because it's not.

As jpark has said...

both sides of the isle are corrupt. They are all abandoning the public they are suppose to represent for corporate lobbyists.

to be fair all the media cares about anymore is who is marrying who and how much was their wedding. even channels like MSN are only worried about pop culture. the real issues seem to get tossed to the side.

lol.....yeah maybe :)

we are the legacy...the Sheeple of the Universe

Baaaaah.....Baaaahhh

I am a sheep
I think not deep
I pay my tax
gave my bike the ax
and horde my SUV

No crisis here
it's Lib's and Beer
no change from me
gives me sweet liberty
of limited choice and voice

it's not my fault
I took it with salt
I'll follow the masses
even if into crevasses
and yell "play ball!"

In God we trust
it's "more oil" or bust
just 'go shopping' I must
while brain cells rust
my future turns to dust

Perhaps Bush is trying to complete his own legacy. Perhaps he intends to do what Hitler did and create a mega race of idiots(Bushisms). Will he leave office after 8 years or is he to stupid to count that high. Perhaps he intends to continue to retract the rights of Americans and just not leave office. That would be his ultimate betrayal of American rights. Our right to vote.

All Bush did was sign into law a bill sponsored (Chris Dodd in the Senate and California's Lucille Roybal-Allard in the House of Representatives are the sponsors in question) and approved by the Democrats in Congress.

Ah, two wrongs make a right. Just because one group sponsered the bill doesn't mean it needs to be passed. Our forefathers created the Constititution and risked their lives against the tyranny of King George. or is it King George Bush all over again. Let's collect his DNA and see if we can follow the genealogy back through history. His mindset certainly goes back to some evil dictator.

Wow that's rich. You're the one who took the Democrats' action - creating and approving this bill - and said this:

Perhaps Bush is trying to complete his own legacy. Perhaps he intends to do what Hitler did and create a mega race of idiots(Bushisms). Will he leave office after 8 years or is he to stupid to count that high. Perhaps he intends to continue to retract the rights of Americans and just not leave office. That would be his ultimate betrayal of American rights. Our right to vote.

Bush's "wrong" - signing the law - was the second "wrong." The first was the Democrats sponsoring it. It's terribly ignorant and naive to blame it all on Bush - but you did just that.

It's always the kid who throws the second punch that gets disciplined the hardest. But you know damn well he threw the punch for a reason. In my house both get disciplined. Apparently, your only willing to blame one because the first punch was the reason for the second. An eye for an eye.

It's always the kid who throws the second punch that gets disciplined the hardest. But you know damn well he threw the punch for a reason. In my house both get disciplined. Apparently, your only willing to blame one because the first punch was the reason for the second. An eye for an eye.

Try and think about this rationally, if you can. You blamed this entirely on Bush. Your comment said nothing about the people who actually came up with the law in the first place - the Democrats. You are defending the Democrats by saying Bush fell in line with them (which isn't a punch, by the way). Both sides are idiots. A "second punch" would be Bush refusing to sign the law. Can you grasp this? The two sides are in complete agreement, but you are only blaming Bush.

For the next lesson, I'm going to explain how 1 and 1 make 2. Bring your calculator.

That would be his ultimate betrayal of American rights. Our right to vote.

What? You can vote but if you don't know what you are doing, isn't the fault of GWB

Adam
Apparently you can't read. I said both kids get disciplined in my house. When I went to school we weren't given the option to use a calculator. We had to think for ourselves. It's quite apparent you have Bush's rationale and believe that you can force your will on those in opposition.
Determined
Are those double negatives? I think you may have heard a Bush speech on Fox.

I can't dwell. There are other topics.

Determined
Are those double negatives?

Yes, I use it very often. Trademark

I think you may have heard a Bush speech on Fox.

Nah, English is my Second Language.

seriously...threatening the FEDS....seriously???? what you going to get into a gun battle with them because they need a drop of blood?

You are so ignorant and horribly cocky.

Let the feds try to come into my newborn child's birthing room and see what happens!

Thanks for the joke.

oh no i am with you rochart, let them try to take my childs anything. you have no idea what a mother can do when her child is involved! i am so with you on this one rochart!! it's not ignorance Firebrat, it's just he way it is!

hmmmmm.........yes do tell

Then......clear for me the info. Who was who thought about the DNA data base in the newborn. I would like the name and spelling. Thanks.

Are you kidding? Everything is always automatically Bush's fault. Thinking about it and actually doing, what do you call it, research, before assigning Plame, er, blame, is a waste of time. So if you could just sign the impeachment petition...?

finally some one who is making sense! that does raise a question of where they are going to get the money for all this DNA testing. the public will not stand for another tax hike!

see here's where all their lobbying will kick them in the butt though. insurance companies are not going to pay for this, nor is the American public....i hope. these insurance companies are going to lobby against this. it is going to be way to expensive. i think it should be a choice. your right though jpark, they will just tell the hospitals what to do and they will do it.

Oh, are you kidding? The insurance companies are going to LOVE this! Just imagine, the information on who is a high risk is all cataloged somewhere they just need to find a way to access it legally ... and as your insurer, I bet they will find a loophole to get at it. A disease they may not have known about until you contracted it at 60, they can see the predisposition for in your genetics at birth. Oh, no...I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the insurance companies' lobbyists weren't behind this pulling puppet strings.

yeah you have a point there

lol for real