Home / Bureaucracy / Victory in Minnesota: No More State DNA Data Base for Newborns
Print Friendly and PDF

Victory in Minnesota: No More State DNA Data Base for Newborns

Written by Gary North on October 19, 2012

The state of Minnesota created a mandatory data base. The state collected the DNA of every newborn infant.

In the name of the privacy rights of infants, a small group of nine Minnesota families sued the state. They won the case.

The state Supreme Court decided that state law does not authorize state health agencies to take and keep a blood sample of each child.

The state’s position is that this information is the property of the state, to be used for research purposes.

This really meant that specific career-enhancing researchers could get a state subsidy — free blood samples — at the expense of the children’s privacy. It was theft, pure and simple.

The case was brought by the Citizen’s Council for Health Freedom.

President Twila Brase said at the time last year, “We are cheered by this good news. When our organization discovered the state health department’s baby DNA warehouse in 2003 and the use of newborn DNA for genetic research without parent consent, we determined to do all that we could to stop this practice. No state law expressly permits these activities.”

She said, “We are pleased that these nine families were willing to sue the state of Minnesota. Their action and this decision now secures the genetic privacy rights and informed written consent rights of all Minnesota parents and newborn citizens.”

There are 18 states that follow the lead of Minnesota’s bureaucracy. You can find out about this here: ItsMyDNA.org.

This is a defense of property rights. “We’re saying that this DNA is the property of the children and the state doesn’t have a right to claim ownership.” This is the right legal issue to invoke. “We are not government subjects of research by virtue of being born, and our DNA is not government property.”

We are back to eugenics. The state in the past has asserted the right to sterilize people who are unfit genetically. These laws were widespread from around 1910 through the 1930s. They were not removed from the statute books until the 1950s. Had Hitler won World War II in Europe, and therefore had the textbooks been favorable to him and the Nazi sterilization laws that were copied from U.S. state laws, these laws would still be on the books, and they would be enforced. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld them in the case of Buck v. Bell (1927).

Continue Reading on www.wnd.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

3 thoughts on “Victory in Minnesota: No More State DNA Data Base for Newborns

  1. This is pretty scary stuff when you think about what the govt has already done in respect to abortion, privacy rights, etc.
    There is NO reason to collect and store blood for "genetic testing" of anyone! They collect DNA samples from criminals when convicted………that is enough!

  2. Especially when companies like Monsanto are tinkering with the code of life in their GMO products without any thought to what might happen if some patented mutation of theirs leapfrogs to an adjacent organism and triggers an extinction level event. If their "terminator seeds" spread to non-GMO crops it could wipe out the world's food supply.

    But then it's no secret that the world's elite believe in drastic depopulation. The cafeteria at Monsanto's plant in Birmingham England will not serve GMO food. What do they know that we don't???

  3. A victory for feminism and hypergamy!

    Huh? Why?

    Because men in Minnesota and elsewhere no longer have the ability to determine absolutely the paternity of their presumed child in a non-confrontational venue. Go Con-serve-A-Dumb! With 'conservative' victories like this, the Left will soon find itself left behind.