After years of denying that blood samples were taken at birth, bioethicists are arguing for the State’s right to seize newborns’ blood samples for global database.
November 13, 2012
For years, the system denied that blood samples from newborns were being taken at birth and databased into DNA ‘warehouses.’ Alex Jones and other alternative researchers railed against it for more than a decade. Now, that period of denial is over, and the same system is instead declaring its right to do so.
Bioethicists in the Science Translational Medicine journal argued that researchers should be able to retain and peruse the “genetic treasure trove” of blood samples taken during routine screenings at hospitals after birth, despite long-standing objections over privacy, parental rights and disclosure.
In fact, governments across the Western world — and almost every state in the United States — have been collecting, retaining, researching and cataloguing genetic material of babies without any statutory authority to do so, and without parental knowledge for decades.
Long legal battles in states including Minnesota and Texas have resulted in decisions requiring informed consent over these practices, given the existence of genetic privacy laws, and yet health departments and other related entities have petitioned for exemptions from these requirements. In essence, the State has, in many cases, declared ownership over your DNA, keeping genetic material indefinitely. However, in Minnesota and Texas, authorities have been ordered to destroy millions of samples to comply with privacy laws.
Twila Brase, president of the Citizens’ Council on Health Care, worked on many of these cases, and breaks down the issue in the following video:
“The DNA taken at birth from every citizen is essentially owned by the government, and every citizen becomes a potential subject of government-sponsored genetic research,” Brase states. “It does not require consent and there are no requirements to inform parents about the warehousing of their child’s DNA for the purpose of genetic research.
A 2008 law signed by President George W. Bush appears to give legitimacy to storing and researching newborn genetic material, despite legal challenges and outcry from people like Congressman Ron Paul, who say the law is unconstitutional.
Now, bioethicists Michelle Huckaby Lewis, Michael E. Scheurer, Robert C. Green and Amy L. McGuire have written a white paper to argue for the legitimacy of preserving these DNA samples for research, in spite of parental objections and clear civil rights issues.
The abstract for their policy paper, Research Results: Preserving Newborn Blood Samples, summarizes the issue:
Retention and use, without explicit parental permission, of residual dried blood samples from newborn screening has generated public controversy over concerns about violations of family privacy rights and loss of parental autonomy. The public debate about this issue has included little discussion about the destruction of a potentially valuable public resource that can be used for research that may yield improvements in public health. The research community must advocate for policies and infrastructure that promote retention of residual dried blood samples and their use in biomedical research.
These bioethicists have complained that a “narrow view of privacy is hampering research,” insisting instead that “the research community must advocate for policies that support the retention of these samples and their use in biomedical research,” as author Michelle Lewis stated. These DNA sample must be used to the “fullest extent possible to improve the health of our citizenry,” according to the authors.
The policy is squarely on the side of larger State power, where the concerns of the individual are swept aside in the name of the “greater good.” These authors emphasize the potential for research in medical treatments and other potentially life-saving solutions, and yet the era has dawned where consumer-patients are offered access to costly patented genetic interventions where an individual’s God-given genetic material is sold back to them for a price.
It is an emerging paradigm of total state control over life, reproduction, screening for “designer babies” and other related areas controlled by the system for the benefit of insider crony corporate interests. And the collectivist “bioethicists,” (who are really neo-eugenicists), are arguing for so-called ethical tradeoffs in every conceivable field — from abortion, cloning, artificial insemination, end of life care (a.k.a. death panels), animal rights, transhumanism, euthanasia, eugenics, life extension, human experimentation and much more.
Their philosophy, to empower the technocratic state and selectively advance preferred individuals under that system, comes from the classical Eugenics era, where leading voices like T. H. Huxley, president of the Royal Society of Science and grandfather of author Aldous Huxley and biologist/UNESCO founder Julian Huxley, argued that under eugenics, it is “ethical” to replace inferior individuals (and their reproductive rights) with that of superior individuals. It is an elitist creed that has passed down from the ages and continues today in the hands of the globalist cabal steering the emerging world government system.
Leading bioethicists have argued, in official white papers mind you, that babies should be allowed to be killed up to age 3, that health care rationing and death panels are justifiable, that water supplies should be laced with lithium and other mind-altering drugs to socially control the population, and much more.