The Great Deception -> Dna Database - Baby Blood Taken At Birth

Dna Database - Baby Blood Taken At Birth, Minnesota Supreme Court case on

Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

jofortruth

Posted: Mar 5 2011, 12:06 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,703
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Minnesota Supreme Court Video Oral Argument
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM-kqcxpHKk
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=202837.0

Respondent's Brief: Alan and Keri Bearder, et al v. State of Minnesota Dept of Health et al: (Others below)
http://www.cchfreedom.org/pdf/dna-supreme_...nsive-brief.pdf

Plaintiff's Brief:
http://www.cchfreedom.org/pdf/Plaintiffs-M...f-Law-FINAL.pdf

Attorney Sam Hanson is Plaintiff's attorney: (Aptd by Jesse Ventura in 2000 to Appeals Court)
http://www.briggs.com/samhansonjoins/

Minnesota Genetic Privacy Statute:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=13.386
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=13.386&year=2006

QUOTE

13.386 TREATMENT OF GENETIC INFORMATION HELD BY GOVERNMENT ENTITIES AND OTHER PERSONS.

Subdivision 1.Definition. (a) "Genetic information" means information about an identifiable individual derived from the presence, absence, alteration, or mutation of a gene, or the presence or absence of a specific DNA or RNA marker, which has been obtained from an analysis of:

(1) the individual's biological information or specimen; or

(2) the biological information or specimen of a person to whom the individual is related.

(b) "Genetic information" also means medical or biological information collected from an individual about a particular genetic condition that is or might be used to provide medical care to that individual or the individual's family members.

Subd. 2.Private data.Genetic information held by a government entity is private data on individuals as defined by section 13.02, subdivision 12.

Subd. 3.Collection, storage, use, and dissemination of genetic information.Unless otherwise expressly provided by law, genetic information about an individual:

(1) may be collected by a government entity, as defined in section 13.02, subdivision 7a, or any other person only with the written informed consent of the individual;

(2) may be used only for purposes to which the individual has given written informed consent;

(3) may be stored only for a period of time to which the individual has given written informed consent; and

(4) may be disseminated only:

(i) with the individual's written informed consent; or

(ii) if necessary in order to accomplish purposes described by clause (2). A consent to disseminate genetic information under item (i) must be signed and dated. Unless otherwise provided by law, such a consent is valid for one year or for a lesser period specified in the consent.

History: 2006 c 253 s 4

NOTE: In the video they mention an OPT OUT rule. This seems to be pervasive in everything (i.e. unless you opt out, we can do as we please attitude. Many time they just don't inform people of the opt out provision). However, the law says THEY MUST GET CONSENT to otherwise use that babies dna sample!

Be sure to listen to the Plaintiffs' Atty Sam Hanson's rebuttal at end of the video (Time 57:16). He points out that the Health Dept came to the Legislature on 3 separate occasions (2007, 2008, 2009) asking them to EXEMPT them for Newborn Screenings. The legislature refused to do so. That should tell you something!

jofortruth

Posted: Mar 5 2011, 12:24 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,703
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Newborn Screening Statute:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=144.125

QUOTE

144.125 TESTS OF INFANTS FOR HERITABLE AND CONGENITAL DISORDERS.

Subdivision 1.Duty to perform testing.It is the duty of (1) the administrative officer or other person in charge of each institution caring for infants 28 days or less of age, (2) the person required in pursuance of the provisions of section 144.215, to register the birth of a child, or (3) the nurse midwife or midwife in attendance at the birth, to arrange to have administered to every infant or child in its care tests for heritable and congenital disorders according to subdivision 2 and rules prescribed by the state commissioner of health. Testing and the recording and reporting of test results shall be performed at the times and in the manner prescribed by the commissioner of health. The commissioner shall charge a fee so that the total of fees collected will approximate the costs of conducting the tests and implementing and maintaining a system to follow-up infants with heritable or congenital disorders, including hearing loss detected through the early hearing detection and intervention program under section 144.966. The fee is $101 per specimen. Effective July 1, 2010, the fee shall be increased to $106 per specimen. The increased fee amount shall be deposited in the general fund. Costs associated with capital expenditures and the development of new procedures may be prorated over a three-year period when calculating the amount of the fees.

Subd. 2.Determination of tests to be administered.The commissioner shall periodically revise the list of tests to be administered for determining the presence of a heritable or congenital disorder. Revisions to the list shall reflect advances in medical science, new and improved testing methods, or other factors that will improve the public health. In determining whether a test must be administered, the commissioner shall take into consideration the adequacy of analytical methods to detect the heritable or congenital disorder, the ability to treat or prevent medical conditions caused by the heritable or congenital disorder, and the severity of the medical conditions caused by the heritable or congenital disorder. The list of tests to be performed may be revised if the changes are recommended by the advisory committee established under section 144.1255, approved by the commissioner, and published in the State Register. The revision is exempt from the rulemaking requirements in chapter 14, and sections 14.385 and 14.386do not apply.

Subd. 3.Objection of parents to test.Persons with a duty to perform testing under subdivision 1 shall advise parents of infants (1) that the blood or tissue samples used to perform testing thereunder as well as the results of such testing may be retained by the Department of Health, (2) the benefit of retaining the blood or tissue sample, and (3) that the following options are available to them with respect to the testing: (i) to decline to have the tests, or (ii) to elect to have the tests but to require that all blood samples and records of test results be destroyed within 24 months of the testing. If the parents of an infant object in writing to testing for heritable and congenital disorders or elect to require that blood samples and test results be destroyed, the objection or election shall be recorded on a form that is signed by a parent or legal guardian and made part of the infant's medical record. A written objection exempts an infant from the requirements of this section and section 144.128.

History: 1965 c 205 s 1; 1977 c 305 s 45; 1Sp1981 c 4 art 1 s 75; 1985 c 248 s 70; 1986 c 444; 1988 c 689 art 2 s 31; 1994 c 636 art 2 s 2; 1997 c 203 art 2 s 11; 1997 c 205 s 19; 1Sp2003 c 14 art 7 s 26; 2007 c 147 art 16 s 7; 2009 c 79 art 10 s 5

jofortruth

Posted: Mar 5 2011, 02:43 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,703
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Bush Signs Bill To Take All Newborns� DNA
http://www.infowars.com/bush-signs-bill-to...l-newborns-dna/

S. 1858 ��Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007��
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1858
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...1858enr.txt.pdf

Analysis of S1858 by Twila Brase:
http://www.cchfreedom.org/pdf/S_1858_NBS-D...ehouseFINAL.pdf

QUOTE

�
FIVE KEY CONCERNS�

A careful examination of H.R 3825 elicits the following five concerns regarding genetic privacy and consent rights:�

1. No consent; Expanded testing
2. Nationalized government databases and registries
3. Tracking individuals with �disorders�
4. Research on citizens without consent
5. Coercive funding.� � � �

"Behavioral Genetics Research and criminal DNA Databases" D H Kaye 2006 (see pg 6 of the above analysis where this document is referred to):
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?69+L...pring+2006)+pdf

NOTE: Pdf Part IV on PAGES 25-29 (pg29 in particular) where it makes reference to eugenics, massive sterilization and eventually euthanasia of the so-call UNFIT".

jofortruth	Posted: Mar 5 2011, 03:04 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,703 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	Minnesota Judge�s Dismissal of Newborn Blood Spot Case Misses the Mark http://predicter.blogspot.com/2009/12/minn...of-newborn.html

jofortruth	Posted: Mar 5 2011, 03:12 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,703 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	Newborn Genetic and Metabolic Disease Screening http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/...16/Default.aspx Laws now in every State. This gives the statute!

jofortruth	Posted: Mar 5 2011, 11:46 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,703 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	National Newborn Screening Status Report (Jan 18, 2011) http://genes-r-us.uthscsa.edu/nbsdisorders.pdf

jofortruth	Posted: Mar 6 2011, 11:33 AM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,703 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	Citizens Council HC website: (New Name: Citizens' Council for Health Freedom) http://www.cchfreedom.org/ http://www.cchfreedom.org/issues/NewbornGeneticTestingMN.php Baby DNA Court Ruling Disregards Constitutional Rights: http://www.cchfreedom.org/pr/pr082510.php Twila Brase on DNA Warehouse and Ownership http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBu6Tpvq_9w...nel_video_title Twila Brase testifies on 780,000 children in MNDNA Warehouse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mD5Trpd4d8&feature=relmfu NOTE: IMO, the people contesting this are not against legitimate screening of newborns within limits. What they are against is the uncontrolled use of this DNA that could be given to anyone for research and is being put in a DNA database that has no relation to that child's wellbeing. This is why people are calling for these blood samples to be destroyed once used for their initial purpose of screening (the Minnesota Supreme Court current case is a case in point). There is great room for abuse of this system when you have eugenicists making the laws at the top of the chain, including coming out of DC. Bush passed the law and then it became a mandate of every State. If you give these types an inch, they always take a mile. It's called INCREMENTALISM. That is the concern! Now with the new healthcare takeover bill, the sky is the limit with these people at the top. Those below who really think they are doing a good thing need to start looking into what is really happening by taking a look at mandates they receive from the top. This appears to go much deeper than just a simple screening for newborns especially in lieu of the new healthcare bill just passed in DC. DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE GOOD HEALTH PROFESSIONALS. THAT IS YOUR DUTY!

jofortruth

Posted: Mar 6 2011, 12:03 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,703
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Violation Confirmed: (PLEASE LISTEN TO VIDEO)
http://rongstad.blogspot.com/2008/12/minne...-of-health.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTEliHjzIAQ...player_embedded

QUOTE

The press release:

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, December 10, 2008

VIOLATION CONFIRMED
Minnesota Department of Health Continues to Store Baby DNA without Required Parent Consent; Violates Genetic Privacy Law�and Governor�s Veto

St. Paul/Minneapolis � In a press conference held today, concerned parents and the Citizens� Council on Health Care (CCHC) called on Governor Tim Pawlenty to require his Commissioner of Health to cease and desist the warehousing of newborn blood and baby DNA without informed, written parent consent.

Twila Brase, president of CCHC, listens as DeEtta Moos, mother of four children, expresses concerns over the violation of Minnesota's genetic privacy law for storage and use of baby DNA �Despite Governor Pawlenty�s veto of the health department�s DNA warehousing bill last legislative session�we have confirmed that the Minnesota Department of Health is continuing to warehouse baby DNA without parent consent. This is a direct violation of the genetic privacy and DNA property rights of parents and children,� said Twila Brase, president of CCHC.

DeEtta Moos, mother of four children, said, �Last session, there was an attempt to undercut Judge Neilson's ruling, but thanks to Governor Pawlenty's veto, the Minnesota Genetic Privacy Law still demands the requirement of parental consent for storage of blood and any purposes beyond the initial testing.�

Ryan Sibinski, expectant father of twins, expressed his disappointment saying, �My wife and I are acutely aware that storage of newborn DNA is still being done illegally by the MN Department of Health. We thought the Governor�s veto was supposed to solve this, but we have now discovered that the storage continues.�

Mr. Sibinski continued, �In two months or less, our babies will be born. I request here today that the Department of Health make sure that I am clearly asked to consent to the storage, use, and sharing of my children�s blood and DNA. This is my legal right under the law.�

Attorney Nathan Hansen, who has been attempting to obtain public documents regarding the transfer and use of newborn DNA for research studies, said, �No excuse has been given by the Department for this information not to be handed over.�

Notable History:

August 1, 2006 � Minnesota Genetic Privacy Law (M.S. 13.386) becomes effective. Informed written consent required for collection, storage, use and dissemination of genetic information by government and others.

January 23, 2007 � At request of concerned citizens, a public hearing was held on the health department�s proposed revision to the newborn screening rule.

March 23, 2007 � Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Barbara Neilsen rules that the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) is violating the 2006 state genetic privacy law�s informed written consent requirements for storage, use and dissemination.

July 3, 2007 � Chief Administrative Law Judge Raymond R. Krause denies Health Commissioner Dianne Mandernach�s appeal of the Neilsen ruling.

August 29, 2007 � Commissioner Mandernach withdraws the proposed revision to the newborn screening rule.

February 25, 2008 � Legislation introduced in the Minnesota legislature to exempt the newborn screening program (collection, storage, use, and dissemination) from the genetic privacy law�s requirements for informed, written consent.

May 19, 2008 � Governor vetoes S.F. 3138, prohibiting an exemption to the genetic privacy law�s consent requirements. He mentions ALJ ruling in his veto letter.

November 18, 2008 � David Orren, MDH Chief Legal Counsel, confirms to CCHC that MDH continues to store newborn blood without consent.

Ms. Brase called on Governor Pawlenty to act, saying, �We call on Governor Pawlenty to take immediate steps to assure the public that he supports the rule of law, and holds his administration accountable to follow the law. Let me suggest that he issue a statement today guaranteeing the health department�s compliance with the written informed consent requirements of the genetic privacy law. He could decree that no newborn blood be warehoused, used for research, or shared with others without informed written parent consent. He could order the health department to release public documents in compliance with the Government Data Practices Act. And he could also promise to dismantle the state�s DNA warehouse, protecting the genetic privacy rights of the more than 780,000 children whose DNA has been claimed by state government and warehoused without consent.�

Links to the Governor's veto letter, the Administrative Law Judge's decision, the Minnesota Department of Health and CCHC documents can be found at http://www.itsmydna.org/.

Contact Information:
Twila Brase
President, Citizens' Council on Health Care
651-646-8935 office

jofortruth

Posted: Mar 6 2011, 12:14 PM

Administrator

Group: Admin
Posts: 31,703
Member No.: 1
Joined: 1-May 07

Veto Baby DNA Bill Governor Pawlenty
http://rongstad.blogspot.com/2008/05/veto-...r-pawlenty.html

QUOTE

Below is the letter sent by Citizens' Council on Health Care to Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty asking him to veto S.F. 3138 which removes the parental consent requirement for collection in Minnesota of newborn's DNA.

May 5, 2007

Governor Tim Pawlenty
Office of the Governor
130 State Capitol
Saint Paul, MN 55155

Dear Governor Pawlenty,

Please pick up your veto pen. You have a critical decision to make.

The future of human rights, privacy rights, and the rights of human subjects in genetic research will be determined by your decision to sign or veto S.F. 3138.

S.F. 3138 eliminates current legal informed written parent consent protections for the Minnesota Department of Health�s genetic research program.

Today, parents must give their consent before the health department can store, use, or share their newborn baby�s DNA for the department�s genetic research program.

If you do not veto S.F. 3138, the bill will take away today�s informed consent requirements and make Minnesota citizens available for involuntary genetic research.

In short, if S.F. 3138 becomes law, current ethical standards, research standards, privacy standards, and human rights standards will be eliminated. If you do not veto S.F. 3138, your administration will usher in a standard supportive of involuntary research on human subjects.

Without consent, the blood and DNA of newborn citizens could be used to create genetic profiles on citizens, analyze blood for the presence of genetic defects, assess citizen for future disease potential, and conduct research, which may be objectionable to the subject of that research.

We believe that this is not the legacy you wish for the Pawlenty administration.

Please recall that an administrative law judge ruled in March 2007 that the 2006 Minnesota Genetic Privacy Law legally requires the Minnesota Department of Health to get informed parent consent before storage, use and dissemination to researchers of newborn citizen blood and DNA.

Rather than comply with the judge�s decision�or state law�the Commissioner of Health brought S.F. 3138 to the legislature to specifically exempt the health department�s DNA analysis and genetic research program from the informed consent requirements of the Minnesota Genetic Privacy Law.

What does this mean in real numbers? As I said in our press conference last Thursday (YouTube video available online on our website � www.itsmydna.org):

If this bill becomes law, it means that the 780,000 children whose DNA has already been claimed as state property (and illegally stored in what we call the Minnesota �DNA Warehouse�) will not be protected by the Minnesota genetic privacy law. Like the 42,210 children who have already been [involuntary] subjects of government genetic research, the DNA and genetic information of all 780,000 children can be used and given to researchers now and into the future without consent. It means that the 73,000 children born each year whose DNA is added to the warehouse will not be protected by the informed consent requirements of the genetic privacy law.

It means that the DNA and genetic code of our youngest citizens can be profiled, probed, analyzed and experimented on into adulthood without consent�unless the parent in the midst of labor, delivery and mind-numbing, post-delivery exhaustion understands the sweeping research authority of the State and takes steps to object.

But, let�s be clear, the right to object is not the right to be fully informed. And the right to object is nowhere close to the legal rights of opt-in consent, which we have in law today�and SF 3138 is about to eliminate.

Two years ago the Minnesota legislature looked into the future and rightly saw the critical need to protect citizens from having their DNA and genetic information collected, stored, used, and shared by government agencies and others. The 2006 legislature took action to protect the citizens of Minnesota from involuntary genetic research. They passed the 2006 Minnesota Genetic Privacy Law (Minn. Statutes 13.386), which requires informed consent for collection, storage, use and dissemination of the genetic information of individuals.

S.F. 3138 is about to undo that law�and the legal rights of parents, families and individuals.

If you do not veto S.F. 3138, the legal right of citizens to be fully informed, the legal right of informed consent, and the legal right of citizens to protect themselves and their families from the genetic research agendas of the Minnesota Department of Health and others will be eliminated.

In 2006, informed consent became a legal requirement and a guaranteed right of citizens.

In 2008, will citizens lose this right?

The decision rests on you. Your decision will define your administration�s legacy in protecting the rights of all Minnesota citizens. Will you veto S.F. 3138 to protect citizens, or make the bill law and leave citizens vulnerable to becoming involuntary subjects of government research?

The decision is yours alone.

We ask you to protect individuals and families by using the strong stroke of your veto pen.

Sincerely,

Twila Brase
President

Martin N. Kellogg
Chairman

In the Minnesota Senate only three Senators stood for personal privacy and voted no on S.F. 3138. The three Senators are:

Sen. Michael Jungbauer (R-East Bethel)
Sen. Warren Limmer (R-Maple Grove)
Sen. Ray Vandeveer (R-St. Anthony)

Who voted FOR the bill...and FOR eliminating current informed consent requirements for government DNA storage and genetic research?

Republicans who voted FOR the bill (supporting elimination of informed consent): Dille, Fischbach, Frederickson, Gerlach, Gimse, Hann (told CCHC he wishes he wouldn't have voted for it), Ingebrigtsen, Johnson, Koch, Koering, Michel, Pariseau, Robling, Senjem, Wergin

Democrats who voted FOR the bill (supporting elimination of informed consent): Bakk, Betzold, Bonoff, Carlson, Chaudhary, Clark, Dahle, Dibble, Erickson Ropes, Foley, Higgins, Kubly, Langseth, Larson, Latz, Lourey, Lynch, Marty, Metzen, Moua, Olseen, Mary Olson, Pappas, Pogemiller, Rummel, Saltzman, Saxhaug, Sheran, Sieben, Skogen, Stumpf, Torres Ray, Vickerman, Wiger.

jofortruth	Posted: Mar 6 2011, 12:34 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,703 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	Baby DNA Lawsuits: http://www.cchfreedom.org/baby-dna-lawsuits.php Nine-Family Appelants Reply to the MN Supreme Court re: MN Department of Health Brief - January 24, 2011: http://www.cchfreedom.org/pdf/dna-supreme%...reply-brief.pdf Alan and Keri Bearder, et al v. State of Minnesota Dept of Health et al: http://www.cchfreedom.org/pdf/dna-supreme_...nsive-brief.pdf Nine-Family Supreme Court Appellant's Principal Brief - December 14, 2010 http://www.cchfreedom.org/pdf/dna-supreme%...cipal-brief.pdf

jofortruth	Posted: Mar 8 2011, 10:03 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,703 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	Is this connected to the DOD Jason Mitre Project? http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...=0#entry5356571

jofortruth	Posted: Sep 28 2011, 08:53 AM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,703 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...=0#entry5371171

jofortruth	Posted: Nov 18 2011, 02:14 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,703 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	MN Supreme Court Blocks Government Plan To Claim Ownership Of DNA http://www.infowars.com/supreme-court-bloc...nership-of-dna/

jofortruth	Posted: May 15 2012, 02:12 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 31,703 Member No.: 1 Joined: 1-May 07	Now the Dept of Homeland Security is preparing to Grab DNA from your kids: http://www.infowars.com/department-of-home...-dna-from-kids/ http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/28.12 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/14135a

0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

0 Members:

« Next Oldest | Health-related / Flu Pandemic & H1N1 Scare / WHO / Eugenics / Vaccines / Codex Alimentarius/Cancer Treatment | Next Newest »

DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you