Fighting For Your DNA: Citizens' Council On Health

In addition to the many fronts that are now being waged against American citizens' privacy rights against unlawful search and seizure, chalk one more up that is now being fought on the state level with respect to the most private information, in addition to your medical records, that any American citizen has. His very own DNA.

Right now there is a battle going on in the State of Minnesota with respect to ownership rights of American citizens DNA which is being fought by the Citizens' Council on Health Care.

Twila Brase, the spokesperson for this organization, recently was on the Glenn Beck show attempting to enlighten and educate the public on the assaults which are now going on at both the state and federal levels with respect to Americans; medical information such as the provisions contained within the stimulus package on the establishment of a National Health Care Database, and the even more violative one now being waged in Minnesota over ownership rights of private citizens DNA, and that of their children.

This small, privately funded groups is and has been facing a David and Goliath battle against several medical research facilities, and the huge civic organization, the March of Dimes, who would like to be able to harvest DNA samples from patients in hospitals, including infants, for medical research purposes WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT, and accessible through a "state" warehousing facility.

It appears that these groups and research facilities are attempting to form a public/private partnership with the states in order to house this DNA for what is being represented as "for the good of humanity," in fighting birth defects and genetic diseases, but which also potentially could be used in the future for morally repugnant purposes also, such as selective genetic screenings and abortions, or genetic altering or engineering.

The bill also is rather ambiguous and silent on whether or not these DNA samples then could also be used for other reasons, such as evidence then in criminal proceedings without the issuance of warrants or probable cause thus convicting individuals without affording them the Constitutional protections of due process and meeting evidentiary standards in criminal proceedings.

The state would have custody of these records and samples in a DNA "warehouse."

It also appears that the expenses in maintaining such a warehouse have not also been give even cursory consideration.

CCHC has been fighting in order to place simply minimal "informed consent" requirements within the bill.

But I, as a citizen, believe this fight needs to be expanded in order to provide not merely the "safeguard" of implied consent, but should be mandated to require full disclosure, and "express" consent, a higher legal standard.

Simple implied consent would afford hospital administrators and corporate attorneys to hide such provisions within hospital admittance forms in all the legalese that is already included in such forms.

How many Americans, especially women in the midst of labor, have the presence of mind to truly digest the many pages included within hospital admittance forms now as it is. Express consent forms would require a separate and specific signature form and disclosure, and the risks involved to both patient and in the instance of children, their newborn, and require disclosure of the specific purpose for which the DNA will be used.

My basic question also is why is the state getting involved in this at all, at the taxpayer's expense with respect to warehousing these samples?

If the March of Dimes or Mayo Clinic (one of the research facilities involved) would like access to individual citizens DNA, should this not also be between doctor and patient or guardian, with the March of Dimes and these research facilities then also able to request volunteers for specific, legally sanctioned and regulated research purposes, with laws also strictly formulated and enforced on the storage methods and destruction of those samples and records after the specific research has been concluded?

These researchers must know at this point due to the push now for access to Americans DNA what exactly they hope to achieve with such research.

Limiting through legislation the purposes for which these samples can be used to purely "research" and not in any way "engineering," or as "selective abortion" diagnostic instruments appears to be absent in even minimally addressing this potential can of worms in the legislation as it is now written in its current form.

Below is the link to the CCHC's website, and they could use all the support they can get in fighting this open ended legislation at this point, which is now also spreading to other states throughout the nation:

http://www.cchconline.org/

Congress Introduces "CyberSecurity Act of 2009"

For free speech and privacy activists it appears that the Patriot Act was not enough. Nor the Patriot Act II signed into law shortly after newly elected Barack Obama was sworn into office hiding the provisions of a National Health Care database of citizen's health care records to be created by the government violating privacy rights at taxpayer's expense.

Now there is a move by Congress to grant powers to the President to regulate and control internet access. This "hope" and "change" is getting worse by the day. In it's current form, it appears the powers given are fairly broad in an effort to protect America's infrastructure in times of "crisis." However, the definition of a "crisis" is left to the sole discretion of the President.

Senate bills No. 773 and 778 (The "Cybersecurity Act of 2009) introduced by Senator Jay Rockfeller D-W.V. creates a new government agency (expanding government jobs and taxpayer expense once again) entitled the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor which would be accountabl directly to the president whose main publicized function would be in defending the U.S. from "cyber attack."

The purpose of the bill as stated in its draft form is as follows:

"To ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communicatons,

to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes,

to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cyber security defenses against disruption,

AND FOR OTHER PUPOSES."

In the working draft of the legislation recently obtained by an Internet privacy group, the plan also grants the Secretary of Commerce access to all internet service providers which can in any way be deemed to be critical to the nation's infrastructure and defense "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."

This measure as defended by Mr. Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe, co-sponsors of the bills, is meant to give the Secretary of Commerce discretion to protect American's banking and health records in order to shut down those providers the President designates in the event of a "cyber attack."

The problems most in the cyber industry have brought up most often in response to these proposals is the lack of a clear definition of just what are the "critical infrastructure" networks, and the lack of any accountability of the President or the Secretary of Commerce given such powers and simply left at their sole discretion.

And the potential for access of the government, of course, to citizens private records in violation of the Constitution's "search and seizure" provisions.

The bills have been read twice on the floor, and have now been referred to Committee.