NEWJERSEY: The mandatory newborn blood spot testing should be allowed as evidence

Monday, October 24, 2022

https://www.forensicmag.com/591014-NJ-Bill-Limits-Use-of-Newborn-Dried-Bloodspot-Cards/

NJ Bill Limits Use of Newborn Dried Bloodspot Cards
10/18/2022, 8:12:46 PM · 4 of 4
JohnBovenmyer to nickcarraway

*** begin quote *** 

Don’t throw the babies out with the bath water here. The mandatory newborn blood spot testing is essential for detecting several rare genetic diseases that can be treated if treatment is started very young, but that may not be treatable if diagnosis is delayed until the child becomes symptomatic. Realistically it’s the only chance these kids have. And it’s cost effective for the state as the often large medical expenses by those diagnosed too late tended to devolve on the states. Several diseases are tested for in essentially all states, some states have chosen to add to the basic list to be tested.

If states wish to limit access to this data beyond its original intentions that is their choice, and is certainly preferable to not having as close to 100% of kids tested as is possible. Alleged criminals deserve reasonable due process rights. Using these for DNA evidence should still be feasible if proper process and real judicial oversight is established. Legislatures and courts deal with similar issues routinely and should be able to handle this. What I can’t accept here and fear the woke soft on crime types would push is a novel principle that rapists can bar any DNA evidence they left behind from admittance on the grounds of self incrimination. Such should be as admissible as fingerprints and dropped wallets. If tech allows cops to more efficient at accurately catching crooks it is good for society and for both past and otherwise potential future victims of crime. I don’t want that genie back in its bottle. Still citizens, their elected representatives and their courts need to beware of the potential abuse of state powers, provide appropriate oversight and limits there.

*** end quote ***

Seem like the “dropped wallet” analogy is appropriate.

And, the purpose is to save children from rare diseases.  If a few bad guys get caught as a result, then that is just a Unintended Consequence dividend.

—30—


INSPIRATIONAL: Can DNA open eyes?

Monday, August 21, 2017

http://mailchi.mp/exponentialview/ev127?e=fa5da2e308

*** begin quote ***

https://www.statnews.com/2017/08/16/white-nationalists-genetic-ancestry-test/

White nationalists in America are flocking to DNA tests. They don’t always like the results.

*** end quote ***

I thought this was a hoot.

It just goes to show you that when folks get a scientific fact they don’t like, they can quibble until they get one they do like.

My question for these … … “interesting individuals” is would you take a transfusion from a black human being to save your life? (You could ask the same question in reverse. My answer is “hell yes” and be eternally grateful to the donor.)

Perhaps, these finding could change some hearts and minds?

— 30 —


LIBERTY: DNA ain’t like a fingerprint

Monday, January 7, 2013

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/time-supreme-court-weigh-forced-dna-collection

December 29, 2011
By Rebecca Jeschke
Time for Supreme Court to Weigh in on Forced DNA Collection

*** begin quote ***

Can the government force people who are arrested – but not yet convicted of a crime – to give a DNA sample without a search warrant, or does that violate the Fourth Amendment?  One arrestee is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider this important question, and this week EFF urged the court to take the case.

A federal law mandates DNA collection for those who have been arrested for felonies. The FBI analyzes the samples, and puts a profile into CODIS, a national database.  Those who aren’t eventually convicted of a crime can get their information removed if they request to do so, but data from other individuals remains indefinitely.  In this case from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. v. Mitchell, the defendant argues that the DNA collection violates his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

*** end quote ***

Clearly, it”s more than just a tool for “identification”.

As pointed out, it gives your heritage, your health, your health prospects, and who knows what else.

And, “arrested”; not “convicted”.

Also, do you really trust the Gooferment to do ANYTHING?

# – # – # – # – #