of course you don't own your child's body, ppl are born with basic rights, you can't do whatever you want to someone bc they are your child. that's a really creepy recent Americanism, the concept of one's offspring being one's property.
Ahem. I would say that a parent does not “own” the body of a living child. They are the caretakers and guardians, but that is a different thing. You might say “of course”, but I mention it because there seems to be a mindset developing in the country that parents do own their children and I find it very worrying.
I worked in the lab and asked about these test and start informing parents so when I would do that they would many times refuse consent. So the RN would call the lab to complain I told my manager I was giving informed consent and didn't feel it was ethical do it any other way they just stopped scheduling me to do rounds on the maternity floor
@@anasazirose they just rely on the lab to do their blood draws because they usually suck at it. And their charge RN probably checks to see if they have their requirements done before they discharge the mother and baby. BTW there just a card with a bunch of round circles you have to fill up with blood and soaked into the card stock paper filling every circle 🔴 with blood carry these around drying in the open air on your cart to take back to the lab to send off to the state that is like walking through the hospital with exposed potential biohazard ☣️ not to mention you are Taking that card stock material that is not kept in a package but sitting in your cart open to the air and you are dabbing that on a open cut on the baby's heal that doesn't have developed immune system yet.
@@anasazirose Different subject but I question why you pick that name anasazirose do you know about the Anasazi civilization and what that name means given by the Hopi indians and why they called them that name. Similar to what some are doing to people now.
Are government officials ever criminally liable for 4th amendment violations here? Or is it only a civil matter in which government is a “virtual-person” operated by individuals who are protected by qualified immunity?
Guess what, your identity is a 'virtual person'. The government created a corporation to represent you, which allows them powers over you so long as you ignorantly accept this identity and participate in the system. Look at all your id's and you'll find your name is written in all capital letters, this denotes a corporation.
The limits of government authority are being ignored completely now. If no constitutionally valid law authorizes a government action, it cannot act at all. Period. That's what limited Constitutional government means.
I gave birth in June in WA state and they had me sign consent forms AFTER drugging me up with a bunch of other stuff going on so they made me look crazy for questioning what in the fuck I was signing. Never got copies of whatever it was. And no matter how many times I told them not to take blood samples from the cord they did it anyway which obviously drained the cord so the doctor could be like look, theres no blood you dont need to delay cord clamping. Then he argued with me when I said I could feel him stitching me up. Fuck everything about the US medical system. Including the bootlickers that cant be bothered to think for themselves.
Yep, NJ requires testing even for children born at home: NJ Admin Code § 8:18-1.5 Responsibilities of the birth attendant (a) The birth attendant shall: 1. Submit or cause to be submitted to the testing laboratory an initial blood specimen taken before the infant is 48 hours old from all infants born outside of, and not admitted to, a hospital.
@@bosspup This is very scary information. Thank you for your knowledge and comment. It seems that there is no limit to keep a government from violating peoples privacy rights. Where is the common sense?
They would have to change the laws to avoid giving a birth certificate. I have had 3 home births. In every state home birth is legal. Midwifery may not be legal in every state, but home birth is. In Ohio, the attendant signs the birth certificate. The person who witnessed the birth.
When I gave birth to my son in Ontario Canada, I was asked to sign a consent form about this. The form said that it was for genetic testing, specifically to track genetic illnesses amongst the general population. I didn't like that I wouldn't be given the results unless the tests came back positive for a serious genetic problem. I don't remember seeing anything that said that the data would/could be sold to private entities or handed over to law enforcement during an investigation. I'm due to give birth again in a couple months and plan to read that form a lot more carefully this time.
@williamhouseholder1558 dude that's happening in America too. I just saw that some cities passed laws that teenagers over the age of 12 can't go trick or treating or they'll get a misdemeanor....in the US! There's also laws that are protecting squatters so you can't just evict them and it can take months to even evict them because the process has been lengthened. Oregon has gone to crap because the homeless there are given more rights than the business owners and the other citizens. I mean, laws wise, America isn't doing too great either. Our politicians are passing laws that look pretty on the surface but are doing more damage underneath. Like that law that was passed that requires companies to make accommodations for pregnant women. What company is going to want to hire women now that women are liability and a possible lawsuit waiting to happen? The same thing happened to disabled people when a law was passed forcing companies to make accommodations for disabled people. Our government is doing what the Sith were doing and are slowly inching away our freedoms and rights bit by bit in hopes we won't notice until it's too late. There are so many unnecessary laws that take away rights and freedoms but politicians pass them in hopes that it will get them re-elected. We might have more freedoms and rights than some countries but I'm not really sure how much longer that is going to last.
@babskaz74 RFK is just another liberalista. He even advocated putting people who deny climate change in prison. I wouldn't vote for him if he were the only one running.
Yes. The IJ should actually produce a history timeline for how this crazy intrusive surveillance came to be and note all the key players and how this practice advanced across the states.
I think it's okay. The benefit of keeping the blood is: if someone is suspected of a crime and there's DNA evidence on the scene, then detectives can use baby blood to match the DNA assuming the suspect is less than 24 years old. It makes it easier to find the criminal because the detectives don't need a warrant. I think this is fine.
@@hello-lb3vf So you’re all for giving up your rights under the Constitution? What are you willing to give up next? This is exactly why the Institute for Justice is fighting cases like this.
Hello everyone. If you raise concern about the hospital taking unnecessary amounts of blood or doing tests that you feel your child doesn't need they immediately turn against you and threaten to take your child. Hospitals are predatory towards parent's, it happens constantly, they do not like being told NO and they have DCFS/CPS personnel in the hospital at all times for just these instances. If a mother wants to be discharged before the insurance billing period can be charged for maximum payment, they have threatened to take babies away because a mother feels and is healthy enough to leave, along with her healthy infant, these circumstances have taken place. Who knows what nefarious reason hospitals are collecting blood samples for, every parent of a newborn has the right to question the practice, the problem is hospitals don't like be questioned or challenged.
I've never heard of hospitals threatening to take a newborn when a parent questions their taking an unnecessary amount of blood, or doing unnecessary tests. Could you please help me, and tell me a case? Could you please tell me what kind of unnecessary test you're referring to? I'd like to know more about this!
@@nataliegrn17 They don't threaten to take the baby, they just say they won't sign the babies release and most parents don't fight it because it seems like a dumb fight to pick. Our first two babies we stayed in the hospital two nights (48 hrs), but with the third baby, everything was fine and we felt their was no reason for us to stay a second night, and it was painfully hard to get them to release us at 36 hours. In reality we were "ready" around 18 hours after arrival at the hospital, but there are tests they like to do at 24 hours after birth for the baby, which for us ended up being 35 hours of hospital stay. I can't imagine the pushback we'd have gotten if we'd said we want to leave and come back to do the testing (not that its something I think anyone should do).
They kept me in the hospital for 5 days after I had my son. Tried to keep my son there too. The thing is he didn't have insurance. I sent his ass home after 2 days. The only reason they were able to keep me so long is because I lost a lot of blood and nearly died. I was fine by day two.
Well raven - maybe the so-called "limit" might be a concerned unified population demanding a stop to their unlawful practices? I won't hold my breath for such a unified movement. We are far too divided as a people. That is part of the tyrants plan - to keep us divided against each other.
It’s not intentional tyranny. But the end result can be similar because it’s human nature to come up with new ways to exploit anything we can access or control. Businesses call that “repurposing”.
Ya'll don't get it. It's not the amount of time they keep the BLOOD. They need only have it for hours in order to test all kinds of things, including running it's full genome code. Then all of that data lands in a database somewhere and will exist forever, regardless of whether they destroy the sample.
@tammyschilling5362 I think I speak for a lot of us when I say the hospital keeping the results aren't the issue. It's them keeping the physical blood that is the issue. Which blood they are then (according to this video at least) selling off to researchers and shipping off to the pentagon without consent to do so. Since I doubt these researching facilities are contacting the parents to tell them what research specifically they are doing with that blood or why the blood needs to go to the Pentagon (again, assuming that the video is indeed correct) you can see how it can be concerning. If they have the results from the DNA why do they need to keep it? Why would they need to send it to the Pentagon or to a researching facility when they can just look up the results on the database? Those are the questions that people want answered.
@@youtubecommentator6023I disagree, the issue is the database not them keeping the blood. Why should I care what’s done with it after when it’s not associated with me?
A consent should be signed! Just like when the stem cell research was a big fad in early 2000s and umbilical cord tissue.. Parents had to sign a consent for umbilical cord tissue after birthing to supposedly use in the future if needed. But what happened? These nonprofits partnered with hospitals and many of these nonprofits closed shop after they grabbed as much as they could most likely every baby's cord was taken with or without consent anyway.
Technically there is a consent form, but if you refuse to "consent" they open a case with CPS for medical neglect. They also have the night nurses come and wake you up to do the test, so you don't want to fight them over it.
I guarantee they did agree to it. They give a gigantic packet to half asleep new parents and say we need a dozen signatures before you can leave the hospital soooo...it's probably something that belongs in contract law like agreeing under duress.
They threatened to open a case with CPS and try to take our child for "neglect". And yes, they waited until I left and woke my wife up in the middle of the night. "Consent" made under duress is not true consent.
Who, I mean, which government department, is insuring that these blood samples are collected? What legislation has given them the authority to do this?
You misunderstand my comment. To do anything like this, there is an authority behind it. I actually want to know where the written rules/policies/procedures for this are maintained and who exactly is the author and/or authority which establishes the process. It also would require funding so what legislation provides the funding for the process. @@meowmeowmeowser6349
Our country was founded upon freedom of the people over overbearing governing rule. Today we are slowly becoming oppressed more and more by our governments unchecked rule. We need things such as TERM LIMITS to curb their power and corruption. We need a better way to limit government before it gets out of control.
Agreed, but term limits would not stop this subject case. It would just force politicians to approve special interests' agendas faster before their term runs out. They get paid for their vote or committee approval for each step of the approval process anyway... And those that vote for the supposed good reasons without knowing to ask the questions or direct for protections of the peoples' interests in a policy would still vote for the cover story that sounds great.
Sounds like something where they just take all of your babies genetic information and would effect their insurance costs and tons of other things in the future
It's possible they could be conducting illegal or unethical research too. That could just be a conspiracy theory but if they have access to unlimited amounts of blood samples, why not right? They could do whatever they wanted with them without worrying about running out of supply. I'm not going to jump the gun and say that's whats happening but it is a possibility.
Those samples could be (and probably have been) used to plant DNA evidence at a crime scene... Once a shifty detective is convinced that you did it, he is not likely to miss any opportunity to prove his case.
An important fact for those who are concerned about not testing their baby in the hospital. Those tests done in the hospital are unreliable at that time which is why they test again at their first well baby check up. My kids are a;ll grown but spme of us knew about this way back and were treated like nutcases for refusing them.
I was still curious about this common procedure which is called post natal blood screening. I looked this up on a couple sites. The common thread was that the mother was asked to consent to have their child’s blood held in a umbilical blood bank. They did say it could be used to help others via use of stem cells. My question is how many mothers remember being talked to about this and remember signing this particular consent? Or could a blanket consent be used to protect the hospital from liability. Having a baby is an emotional process. Does a hospital take advantage of this? Just curious about how things are pushed at patients at a very vulnerable time.
I don't recall any consent forms at all during that time but I had a pretty difficult birth. I tore like crazy and the doctor was sewing me up for 30 minutes or more. So they definitely could be taking advantage of women and their partners and making them sign things during a particularly stressful time. You wouldn't remember or know what you're signing and they get to do what they want. It makes sense if it's happening.
@@youtubecommentator6023 I’m so sorry for your difficult birth. Are you and baby doing okay? This is exactly what I’m talking about. How can one remember what is put before you and your husband at that time. I too had a difficult birth with my second daughter. I could not tell you what legal paperwork was put before me. I don’t think there is a woman alive that can remember what the heck she signed at that time. Seems like a perfect way to have someone say to you…..oh it’s just insurance and permission to treat you. I’m sure not liking this at all.
Alex Jones: The government is run by pot belly hob goblin demons that do blood rituals on your children to harvest their souls Me: Oh, that's crazy! Right government!? Government: *nervous laughter*
A j......laid down the honey and they came running....he was compromised...he was invited to bohemian Grove......he was an 'asset'... Montagraph..utube
@@thesuperdingos sadly......on truth stream media....very recent....when tru mp was in office..he signed facial recognition..and....3rd international cvd summit... European parliament.. Brussels... Cristian terhes
Well this is creepy. I live in Missouri I have two children that were born before 2011. In 2011 Missouri passed a law that allows them to store whatever is left over from testing of the baby's blood for 5 years. The state law specifically says that they also can use it for research or do whatever they want with it. What I want to know is what happened to the babies samples prior to 2011. I cannot seem to find that out.
The very people giving birth now are in those generations who believe everything should be public fodder and no privacy. Now they're upset they're getting what they asked for. At a Tesla video people massively thumbed up the idea of making ALL cars have cameras on them and when any accident happens you MUST provide the footage (against the rigtht to self-incrimination) and anyone who refuses is automatically found guilty. This country is slowly going by way of millennial and GenZ and soon Alpha demands of the world. They're going to be sorry making fun of elders for "all" being right wing conspiracy theorists. Because like once prices go up they rarely go back down, once you lose a freedom, it is hard getting it back.
@@fumblerooskie Real world: Initial attempts are just feelers. Eventually the public gets weary of and used to hearing about them. Eventually they sound "normal". Eventually they pass. Repetition ruins everything.
@@C.Church Yes, and meanwhile we are bombarded with issues that do not directly affect us to distract from all of the goings-on that could directly affect us. I feel for those who choose to reproduce and bring more people into this situation.
There is another comment here claiming a family was threatened with CPS involvement for not submitting a sample. Government overreach is getting out of control.
Four of my children were born at home. Still had to have this testing. The diseases they test for are easily treated if caught early, and will kill baby if not treated. It isn't the testing that is the problem, it is retaining the blood sample afterwards.
New Jersey’s program is small potatoes. California runs the California Biobank Program which has been warehousing the newborn dried blood spots since the mid 1980s, indefinitely and without parental informed consent. At a rate of about 500,000 births per year, their biobank has about 20 million. Like in NJ most people have no idea that the state is doing this. I learned of after reading a 2015 LA Times article “Millions of DNA samples stored in a warehouse worry privacy advocates.”
You know the saying "winners write history" which implies altering truths to let villains look like heroes and vice versa good getting depicted as evil.
Well yes, they are here in America. It's where your Nasa came from and all the lies they tell about the 2nd law of thermodynamics they call outer space. The founders were all war criminals who came over in Operation Paperclip. Everything they tell you is a lie to push an agenda of world domination.
Certainly makes a case for home birth. That's the choice we made, just my wife and myself, as I assisted in the delivery, and of course, eventually, the baby.
I think the fact it could be sold to a third party that's the creepiest of all! The last thing you'd want to hear is your baby might be asked to donate a body part to someone because they're a genetic match. No one should have this type of power.
Your placenta, including umbilical cord also is rightfully your property. Baby boys foreskin is also your property. Look into midwifery. Your placenta can be dehydrated, powderized, put into capsules for mothers hormone replacement and other health properties. Sounds grotesque, but superbly beneficial.
The case is worthwhile. The footage of these moms going about their day with a camera in their face is sappy. It also suggests that there is nothing concrete to present to the viewers of the video, just worrying words and stock-like footage. Details, like that Texas was handing it over to the Pentagon (why? when?), and more specificity about what rights are being violated and why should be presented in these videos. More substance, please.
I agree, if this is really happening I would like to see more concrete evidence of it too. I believe that the hospitals are keeping the samples but I'd like more evidence on the claims that they are selling the samples or handing them over to the pentagon.
I was under the impression that in 2002, DNA sampling was federally mandated. That every state had to comply with minimum testing, but can add other tests they "see fit". The norm was to use third party company to side-step culpability.
While I'm very glad to learn that the IJ is suing to shut this down in NJ... this clip really should have included the official NJ State reasoning for this program. Assumptions are all we have now...
You can bet that this collection methodology was never started to benefit the child, but I'd be interested in understanding the rational the state has for doing this.
Exactly the same thing in Washington State for decades. In late 1998 (our daughter was 2), we got a letter from a university that they were doing a study and mentioned they had access to the state's PKU "samples" (not a database, the actual dried blood plotches on a little card) and used a small sample of the sample of her blood for their world-changing research study and found a marker or something that made it interesting for their study. They asked we would enroll in the study, donate more blood, do tests, and follow ups, all in the name of making the future a better place or some such spiel. NO THANK YOU! Back then I had no idea that it was kept on file after the PKU screening until that incident.
We have the medical advances we do today because researchers of the past were able to use materials from the bodies of people who came before us. So I would have been tentatively inclined to say yes, as a matter of civic duty, but I might have wanted a lawyer to look over the agreement. Sadly, today you have to protect yourself from “repurposing” of your data that goes beyond its original intended purpose. And don’t get me started on the abusive nature of the agreements embedded in every single phone or computer app these days.
I was told we had no choice for this. I did not consent. When I asked how, they gave me a reference to an outdated law that had expired. Most members of the hospital gave me a look like, no one ever asks why. I had to look like the jerk father that didn’t want my kid tested for disease but when you research this the odds of these problems are so unlikely a parent shouldn’t be forced when the treatments for most things mentioned are literally just diet changes. I wish I could be a part of this lawsuit to protect the core of the constitutional rights.
@@speedracertv4934 Again... who are you? Do you always inject yourself into conversations? Ever notice the dumb asses making verbose claims are NEVER the ones responding?
In Texas we were told it was to identify P.K.U. disease which could cause permenant brain damage if this amino acid is consumed. I have yet to meet anyone who has this genetic problem.
The hospital will tell parents that if they don't consent to the PKU test (heel stick) the baby doesn't leave the hospital. How legal is that? I was a phlebotomist. There is an opt out for parents on the form. Know your rights parents!
If they want to ask the parents to use to use/sell the blood for research purposes then by all means, ask. But don't take it with the intention of not telling the parents and with plans to do whatever the heck they want with it. That's a part of the their baby's body, the parent should have the right to say what happens to it once the testing is done. Why is this even a question?
NJ state government has been convicted of felony offenses numerous times. Embezzlement, laundering, trafficking, the whole gamut... It's a criminal state government. Look up the history if you haven't - it'll blow you away
Maryland does the same thing...I told them NFW when she was born they explained they need these 4 drops...I told them she only has 100drops....We did the test a month later but I knew it was a racket to get her DNA
Actually it is not a racket. There are a few diseases that need to be caught right away. My husband gives up his long holiday weekends to get in and make sure testing still happens even for babies born on holidays so those few babies with the critical conditions are caught in time to treat and save their lives.
@sarahschreffler5407 It is a racket. The test is for a disease nobody ever heard about until the day a child is born..No doubt there is a benefit and the test is performed. But it is a racket to get everyone's DNA. A DNA register....And if I wanted to make a DNA register I would do the exact same thing.
@@sarahschreffler5407 I like this point. It's important to differentiate the initial use of the blood drops for testing from the long-term storage and access to the data from that blood.
@@sarahschreffler5407It's a racket if people don't get a choice or are coerced into doing it. I think you are rationalizing your husband stepping on peoples rights for the greater good. The greater good is in fact people's rights.
@@2AFreeState Its not the greater good. it's the individual good of the newborns who survive because their conditions are caught in time to make sure they are treated before they die.
Well maybe your baby should have told the government "No" to taking the test after being born. It's time these babies to grow up and take responsibility for their actions and/or inactions.
Now look into this, who owns your child's birth certificate?. If you go to the state and request it they will give you a copy but they own the original. Example, you own your car you have the title in your possession so where is the original title to your child?.
So keeping a record of every baby’s blood. But… Compare that to common acceptable practices. Law enforcement keeps a record of fingerprints of every citizen that’s ever been booked. Exactly how is that ‘allowable’? I get arrested, I’m identified, my prints are taken, but after I’ve served my sentence- why are my prints allowed to be kept? Then by extrapolation on that accepted practice; say the cops want my DNA but lacking sufficient probable cause to obtain a warrant, what’s to stop the cops from setting me up with a ‘pre-textual’ traffic stop? Claiming I’m drunk or high, the cops can force me to submit to a breathalyzer or drug swab. But what happens to the DNA laden tube after the breathalyzer/what happens to the swab after the drug test? Since the tests were deemed lawful, how long can the cops keep and use that seized DNA sample? Really consider the most primary legal concept - Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty. So if I have the presumption of innocence, then how is my DNA, blood sample, or fingerprints allowed to be recorded and stored? Even my booking photo, once my time is served that photo should be destroyed, wiped from every database. To keep my identifying data is Prejudice! *The simple solution to this would be if the judge made the maintaining my identifying data a condition of my sentence (but that would give us the ability to legally challenge that condition at time of sentencing). It’s a straight up invasion/abuse of our rights that’s completely ignored.
The state requires the hospital to do it for them probably some kickback money the hospital gets on the back end the IJ should do a FOIA on tracking the money who pays for it BTW their genetic testing and the laws to protect gene 🧬 discrimination can be changed any time.
How do you think the states have possession of the blood samples? The states require the hospitals to collect them and give them to the states. This isn't an issue with the hospitals, it's the state governments that are causing the problem.
No such luck. New Jersey also requires midwives to do the testing for at-home births: NJ Admin Code § 8:18-1.5 Responsibilities of the birth attendant (a) The birth attendant shall: 1. Submit or cause to be submitted to the testing laboratory an initial blood specimen taken before the infant is 48 hours old
Children should be born at home, not "in the delivery room." This doesn't happen at home. If you think hospitals care about babyies' safety, consider that they do male genital mutilation on them.
Nothing new or original here, simply herd management of human resources. Just inform yourself of the highly successful livestock industry for all the easy answers. USDA prime, choice or select!
The state essentially owns you after you’re born. Why do you think on all your legal documents i.e. birth certificate, drivers license, social security card, marriage license, etc., are capitalized? Because you are a corporation and not a person to the state. Corporations are treated differently than people. They did this by design and people don’t even realize it.
So many people say this but no one says how to avoid it or what paths people can take to change this procedure. Why not tell people how to mitigate this rather than just doom and gloom
@@ducklingwarrior It’s not doom and gloom, it’s just the way it is. But people can’t fix if they don’t know about it. The more that are aware, the better.
Where does cord blood go? A sample was taken at each of my children’s deliveries. No consent asked for, just automatic. At my first child’s birth, I inquired about it. The explanation sounded like it was harvested for future use of that child developed disease or cancer. But it’s not as if my kids actually have access to that sample or those stem cells, so where’d it go? Who was the beneficiary?
I’ve read that this isn’t some nefarious scheme to steal children’s blood. The law requires the tests (a good thing), but the law didn’t specify the records needed to be destroyed, so NJ records retention law kicks in and they keep it for 23 years. There’s no plan on using the blood for or against a child. But the law should specify how long, and for what reason, the blood samples are kept.
Doesn't anyone realise that when a birth certificate is recorded the child becomes a 'ward of the state'? That's what gives child protection services legal right to your kid.
If you don't own your body or the body of your children, and that includes your blood and DNA, than you don't have liberty.
IMHO, Americans care too much about owning guns, forgetting the true liberty they're giving up in other areas
of course you don't own your child's body, ppl are born with basic rights, you can't do whatever you want to someone bc they are your child. that's a really creepy recent Americanism, the concept of one's offspring being one's property.
sry, i went off on a tangent, i do agree with you lol 😊
Ahem. I would say that a parent does not “own” the body of a living child. They are the caretakers and guardians, but that is a different thing. You might say “of course”, but I mention it because there seems to be a mindset developing in the country that parents do own their children and I find it very worrying.
Damn straight! I posted a comment about what these ppl did to me, my family and friends….
All those conspiracy theories around this topic don’t seem so ominous anymore.
They doing more than tracking.😮
What? Naïve much?
@@solomonofjacksonville1305so you admit have no idea what you’re talking about?
It’s only crazy until it’s true
I'm centrist Democrat and saw this coming. But then I'm GenX not millennial or younger, self-programmed to demand nanny state laws so.... yeah.
When the government isn't acting like, "government of the people, by the people, for the people".
Which is always .
Because they are not acting .
They are serious and they seriously do not care .
I worked in the lab and asked about these test and start informing parents so when I would do that they would many times refuse consent. So the RN would call the lab to complain I told my manager I was giving informed consent and didn't feel it was ethical do it any other way they just stopped scheduling me to do rounds on the maternity floor
So they knew, and didnt want the parents to know. Why would that RN not want the parents to know??
@@anasazirose they just rely on the lab to do their blood draws because they usually suck at it. And their charge RN probably checks to see if they have their requirements done before they discharge the mother and baby. BTW there just a card with a bunch of round circles you have to fill up with blood and soaked into the card stock paper filling every circle 🔴 with blood carry these around drying in the open air on your cart to take back to the lab to send off to the state that is like walking through the hospital with exposed potential biohazard ☣️ not to mention you are Taking that card stock material that is not kept in a package but sitting in your cart open to the air and you are dabbing that on a open cut on the baby's heal that doesn't have developed immune system yet.
@@anasazirose Different subject but I question why you pick that name anasazirose do you know about the Anasazi civilization and what that name means given by the Hopi indians and why they called them that name. Similar to what some are doing to people now.
Are government officials ever criminally liable for 4th amendment violations here? Or is it only a civil matter in which government is a “virtual-person” operated by individuals who are protected by qualified immunity?
You mean corporate immunity.
It's Tayzonday! 😎👍
Saving this
Guess what, your identity is a 'virtual person'. The government created a corporation to represent you, which allows them powers over you so long as you ignorantly accept this identity and participate in the system. Look at all your id's and you'll find your name is written in all capital letters, this denotes a corporation.
End Qualified immunity Now.
The limits of government authority are being ignored completely now. If no constitutionally valid law authorizes a government action, it cannot act at all. Period. That's what limited Constitutional government means.
@solomongrundy145 Many would say that government entities ARE big business themselves. I'm no expert, but they definitely are big money.
As soon as mom signs the birth certificate as Informant, the vessel is no longer hers.
I gave birth in June in WA state and they had me sign consent forms AFTER drugging me up with a bunch of other stuff going on so they made me look crazy for questioning what in the fuck I was signing. Never got copies of whatever it was. And no matter how many times I told them not to take blood samples from the cord they did it anyway which obviously drained the cord so the doctor could be like look, theres no blood you dont need to delay cord clamping. Then he argued with me when I said I could feel him stitching me up. Fuck everything about the US medical system. Including the bootlickers that cant be bothered to think for themselves.
Interesting... stem cells for free.. at least they ask..
Police
If the blood itself is destroyed, you can be sure the DNA digitprint isn't.
I had a friend who had their birth at home. They got threatened with children's services if they did not submit a sample.
Yep, NJ requires testing even for children born at home: NJ Admin Code § 8:18-1.5 Responsibilities of the birth attendant (a) The birth attendant shall: 1. Submit or cause to be submitted to the testing laboratory an initial blood specimen taken before the infant is 48 hours old from all infants born outside of, and not admitted to, a hospital.
@@bosspup
This is very scary information. Thank you for your knowledge and comment. It seems that there is no limit to keep a government from violating peoples privacy rights. Where is the common sense?
What's up with this. Are they trying to desperately find the antichrist or something?
I hope they told the state to suck it.
That's fucked up.
This is why home births are becoming more popular. So, they got around that by refusing to issue issue a birth certificate without the blood.
Yes this.
They would have to change the laws to avoid giving a birth certificate.
I have had 3 home births.
In every state home birth is legal.
Midwifery may not be legal in every state, but home birth is.
In Ohio, the attendant signs the birth certificate.
The person who witnessed the birth.
@@freedomspromise8519Is there anyway you can avoid your baby having a birth certificate?
When I gave birth to my son in Ontario Canada, I was asked to sign a consent form about this. The form said that it was for genetic testing, specifically to track genetic illnesses amongst the general population. I didn't like that I wouldn't be given the results unless the tests came back positive for a serious genetic problem. I don't remember seeing anything that said that the data would/could be sold to private entities or handed over to law enforcement during an investigation. I'm due to give birth again in a couple months and plan to read that form a lot more carefully this time.
If they don't test positive for any of the genetic markers, that's the result.
unfortunately in canada you dont have the same rights as people in America. At any moment canada can take what ever rights you think you have away.
@williamhouseholder1558 dude that's happening in America too. I just saw that some cities passed laws that teenagers over the age of 12 can't go trick or treating or they'll get a misdemeanor....in the US! There's also laws that are protecting squatters so you can't just evict them and it can take months to even evict them because the process has been lengthened. Oregon has gone to crap because the homeless there are given more rights than the business owners and the other citizens. I mean, laws wise, America isn't doing too great either. Our politicians are passing laws that look pretty on the surface but are doing more damage underneath. Like that law that was passed that requires companies to make accommodations for pregnant women. What company is going to want to hire women now that women are liability and a possible lawsuit waiting to happen? The same thing happened to disabled people when a law was passed forcing companies to make accommodations for disabled people.
Our government is doing what the Sith were doing and are slowly inching away our freedoms and rights bit by bit in hopes we won't notice until it's too late. There are so many unnecessary laws that take away rights and freedoms but politicians pass them in hopes that it will get them re-elected. We might have more freedoms and rights than some countries but I'm not really sure how much longer that is going to last.
As soon as mom signs the birth certificate as Informant, the vessel is no longer hers.
@@fyrbyrd71it was never hers. The children belong to God and were given to her while in the realm.
It's time to stop allowing evil to flourish in our society.
@babskaz74 nope, I'm not into conspiracy theories!
@babskaz74 RFK is just another liberalista. He even advocated putting people who deny climate change in prison. I wouldn't vote for him if he were the only one running.
@babskaz74RFK Jr is not the answer. He's a gun grabber, and wants to shut down energy production, and cars. He's also pro war.
Evil is too often subjective.
@@Jerry-sr9kqin fairness during the last few years reality has been stranger than fiction.
Ain't that a 4th amendment violation? They "seized" the baby's blood.
Glad IJ is on this & these moms are bringing awareness to this creepy & unconstitutional practice. End the surveillance state!!!
Well this is dystopian..
It’s time to start ensuring capital crime charges are brought for all of these egregious rights violations
As a nj mom this is very worrying
You should join the lawsuit.
Brings new meaning to 23 & Me. 😢
Now you know why people are against gun registries.
Make home births great again.
I would like to know who ordered the blood to be kept, etc...
Yes. The IJ should actually produce a history timeline for how this crazy intrusive surveillance came to be and note all the key players and how this practice advanced across the states.
Why would any state think that this was okay? Why would anyone?
Especially Texas, that’s surprising.
I think it's okay. The benefit of keeping the blood is: if someone is suspected of a crime and there's DNA evidence on the scene, then detectives can use baby blood to match the DNA assuming the suspect is less than 24 years old. It makes it easier to find the criminal because the detectives don't need a warrant. I think this is fine.
@@hello-lb3vf So you’re all for giving up your rights under the Constitution? What are you willing to give up next? This is exactly why the Institute for Justice is fighting cases like this.
@@hello-lb3vfThere’s nothing okay with this, are you kidding me?
@@asmodeus1274give me a break. Texas is among the states with the least moral integrity
Hello everyone. If you raise concern about the hospital taking unnecessary amounts of blood or doing tests that you feel your child doesn't need they immediately turn against you and threaten to take your child. Hospitals are predatory towards parent's, it happens constantly, they do not like being told NO and they have DCFS/CPS personnel in the hospital at all times for just these instances. If a mother wants to be discharged before the insurance billing period can be charged for maximum payment, they have threatened to take babies away because a mother feels and is healthy enough to leave, along with her healthy infant, these circumstances have taken place. Who knows what nefarious reason hospitals are collecting blood samples for, every parent of a newborn has the right to question the practice, the problem is hospitals don't like be questioned or challenged.
I'm curious as to what your generation is and if you speak up when your age peers demand nanny state laws.
I've never heard of hospitals threatening to take a newborn when a parent questions their taking an unnecessary amount of blood, or doing unnecessary tests. Could you please help me, and tell me a case? Could you please tell me what kind of unnecessary test you're referring to? I'd like to know more about this!
It's Jersey, arguably the most corrupt state in the union
@@nataliegrn17 They don't threaten to take the baby, they just say they won't sign the babies release and most parents don't fight it because it seems like a dumb fight to pick. Our first two babies we stayed in the hospital two nights (48 hrs), but with the third baby, everything was fine and we felt their was no reason for us to stay a second night, and it was painfully hard to get them to release us at 36 hours. In reality we were "ready" around 18 hours after arrival at the hospital, but there are tests they like to do at 24 hours after birth for the baby, which for us ended up being 35 hours of hospital stay. I can't imagine the pushback we'd have gotten if we'd said we want to leave and come back to do the testing (not that its something I think anyone should do).
They kept me in the hospital for 5 days after I had my son. Tried to keep my son there too. The thing is he didn't have insurance. I sent his ass home after 2 days. The only reason they were able to keep me so long is because I lost a lot of blood and nearly died. I was fine by day two.
Good way to create specific bio weapons to DNA
How can they share this with 3rd parties? Doesn't that contravene doctor/patient confidentiality?
They may separate the baby and parent name data from the DNA data (at least claim they are) to get around that.
There is no limit to how far tyrants will go.
Well raven - maybe the so-called "limit" might be a concerned unified population demanding a stop to their unlawful practices?
I won't hold my breath for such a unified movement. We are far too divided as a people. That is part of the tyrants plan - to keep us divided against each other.
It’s not intentional tyranny. But the end result can be similar because it’s human nature to come up with new ways to exploit anything we can access or control. Businesses call that “repurposing”.
(((Them)))
Ya'll don't get it. It's not the amount of time they keep the BLOOD. They need only have it for hours in order to test all kinds of things, including running it's full genome code. Then all of that data lands in a database somewhere and will exist forever, regardless of whether they destroy the sample.
@tammyschilling5362 I think I speak for a lot of us when I say the hospital keeping the results aren't the issue. It's them keeping the physical blood that is the issue. Which blood they are then (according to this video at least) selling off to researchers and shipping off to the pentagon without consent to do so. Since I doubt these researching facilities are contacting the parents to tell them what research specifically they are doing with that blood or why the blood needs to go to the Pentagon (again, assuming that the video is indeed correct) you can see how it can be concerning. If they have the results from the DNA why do they need to keep it? Why would they need to send it to the Pentagon or to a researching facility when they can just look up the results on the database?
Those are the questions that people want answered.
@@youtubecommentator6023I disagree, the issue is the database not them keeping the blood.
Why should I care what’s done with it after when it’s not associated with me?
A consent should be signed! Just like when the stem cell research was a big fad in early 2000s and umbilical cord tissue.. Parents had to sign a consent for umbilical cord tissue after birthing to supposedly use in the future if needed. But what happened? These nonprofits partnered with hospitals and many of these nonprofits closed shop after they grabbed as much as they could most likely every baby's cord was taken with or without consent anyway.
Technically there is a consent form, but if you refuse to "consent" they open a case with CPS for medical neglect. They also have the night nurses come and wake you up to do the test, so you don't want to fight them over it.
😂😂😂😂 really well even before the fad, and after the hospitals have been keeping, selling our placentas and cord blood…….😮
I guarantee they did agree to it. They give a gigantic packet to half asleep new parents and say we need a dozen signatures before you can leave the hospital soooo...it's probably something that belongs in contract law like agreeing under duress.
They threatened to open a case with CPS and try to take our child for "neglect". And yes, they waited until I left and woke my wife up in the middle of the night. "Consent" made under duress is not true consent.
And they charge parents for this.
Who, I mean, which government department, is insuring that these blood samples are collected? What legislation has given them the authority to do this?
I'll give you a hint...follow the money trail and see where it leads.
@traybernand you’re naïveté is out of reality
If you refuse to "consent" they open a case with CPS for neglect. They also come in in the middle of the night to do it.
You misunderstand my comment. To do anything like this, there is an authority behind it. I actually want to know where the written rules/policies/procedures for this are maintained and who exactly is the author and/or authority which establishes the process. It also would require funding so what legislation provides the funding for the process. @@meowmeowmeowser6349
@traybern Gaslight much?
Ghouls. Big Brother style ghouls.
Our country was founded upon freedom of the people over overbearing governing rule. Today we are slowly becoming oppressed more and more by our governments unchecked rule. We need things such as TERM LIMITS to curb their power and corruption. We need a better way to limit government before it gets out of control.
You are correct.
I wish the 2 of us could sit down together and have a lengthy political conversation.
I'm sure we are brothers.
That's what they SAID .
Meanwhile ....
Agreed, but term limits would not stop this subject case. It would just force politicians to approve special interests' agendas faster before their term runs out. They get paid for their vote or committee approval for each step of the approval process anyway... And those that vote for the supposed good reasons without knowing to ask the questions or direct for protections of the peoples' interests in a policy would still vote for the cover story that sounds great.
Sounds like something where they just take all of your babies genetic information and would effect their insurance costs and tons of other things in the future
Aha great point. I'm trying to think of some of the many useds for the data, and insurance is huge--so this is likely a driving force in the practice.
It's possible they could be conducting illegal or unethical research too. That could just be a conspiracy theory but if they have access to unlimited amounts of blood samples, why not right? They could do whatever they wanted with them without worrying about running out of supply.
I'm not going to jump the gun and say that's whats happening but it is a possibility.
Those samples could be (and probably have been) used to plant DNA evidence at a crime scene... Once a shifty detective is convinced that you did it, he is not likely to miss any opportunity to prove his case.
An important fact for those who are concerned about not testing their baby in the hospital. Those tests done in the hospital are unreliable at that time which is why they test again at their first well baby check up. My kids are a;ll grown but spme of us knew about this way back and were treated like nutcases for refusing them.
I was still curious about this common procedure which is called post natal blood screening. I looked this up on a couple sites. The common thread was that the mother was asked to consent to have their child’s blood held in a umbilical blood bank. They did say it could be used to help others via use of stem cells.
My question is how many mothers remember being talked to about this and remember signing this particular consent? Or could a blanket consent be used to protect the hospital from liability. Having a baby is an emotional process. Does a hospital take advantage of this? Just curious about how things are pushed at patients at a very vulnerable time.
I don't recall any consent forms at all during that time but I had a pretty difficult birth. I tore like crazy and the doctor was sewing me up for 30 minutes or more. So they definitely could be taking advantage of women and their partners and making them sign things during a particularly stressful time. You wouldn't remember or know what you're signing and they get to do what they want. It makes sense if it's happening.
@@youtubecommentator6023 I’m so sorry for your difficult birth. Are you and baby doing okay? This is exactly what I’m talking about. How can one remember what is put before you and your husband at that time. I too had a difficult birth with my second daughter. I could not tell you what legal paperwork was put before me. I don’t think there is a woman alive that can remember what the heck she signed at that time. Seems like a perfect way to have someone say to you…..oh it’s just insurance and permission to treat you. I’m sure not liking this at all.
Alex Jones: The government is run by pot belly hob goblin demons that do blood rituals on your children to harvest their souls
Me: Oh, that's crazy! Right government!?
Government: *nervous laughter*
A j......laid down the honey and they came running....he was compromised...he was invited to bohemian Grove......he was an 'asset'... Montagraph..utube
Jones went off the deep end on the Sandy Hook stuff but he has been on target with many of his other 'conspiracy theories'
There are people here who still think they have your best interests.
The government is peopled and run by pot-bellied hobgoblin demons.
@@thesuperdingos sadly......on truth stream media....very recent....when tru mp was in office..he signed facial recognition..and....3rd international cvd summit... European parliament.. Brussels... Cristian terhes
Well this is creepy. I live in Missouri I have two children that were born before 2011. In 2011 Missouri passed a law that allows them to store whatever is left over from testing of the baby's blood for 5 years. The state law specifically says that they also can use it for research or do whatever they want with it. What I want to know is what happened to the babies samples prior to 2011. I cannot seem to find that out.
babie's samples
@@NoName-zn1sb I do talk to text. It's not very good at grammar...lol
No telling. Ever heard of the Henrietta Lacks case? 👀👀👀
This is creepy but not even surprising! Your child is the states as soon as they are born. Sad world we live in.
even creepier considering what the elites do with baby blood.
The very people giving birth now are in those generations who believe everything should be public fodder and no privacy. Now they're upset they're getting what they asked for. At a Tesla video people massively thumbed up the idea of making ALL cars have cameras on them and when any accident happens you MUST provide the footage (against the rigtht to self-incrimination) and anyone who refuses is automatically found guilty.
This country is slowly going by way of millennial and GenZ and soon Alpha demands of the world. They're going to be sorry making fun of elders for "all" being right wing conspiracy theorists. Because like once prices go up they rarely go back down, once you lose a freedom, it is hard getting it back.
No, it isn't. That's why these laws are being struck down.
@@fumblerooskie Real world: Initial attempts are just feelers. Eventually the public gets weary of and used to hearing about them. Eventually they sound "normal". Eventually they pass. Repetition ruins everything.
@@C.Church Yes, and meanwhile we are bombarded with issues that do not directly affect us to distract from all of the goings-on that could directly affect us. I feel for those who choose to reproduce and bring more people into this situation.
Isn’t that a HIPAA violation?
Something to be said about home birth and keeping government filth away from your child.
There is another comment here claiming a family was threatened with CPS involvement for not submitting a sample. Government overreach is getting out of control.
Four of my children were born at home. Still had to have this testing. The diseases they test for are easily treated if caught early, and will kill baby if not treated. It isn't the testing that is the problem, it is retaining the blood sample afterwards.
As soon as mom signs the birth certificate as Informant, the vessel is no longer hers.
@@commerce-usawe were threatened in a NJ hospital if we refused to "consent". They basically said they would consider it "neglect" and bring in CPS
@@juresichjhad? Did you say no?
New Jersey’s program is small potatoes. California runs the California Biobank Program which has been warehousing the newborn dried blood spots since the mid 1980s, indefinitely and without parental informed consent. At a rate of about 500,000 births per year, their biobank has about 20 million. Like in NJ most people have no idea that the state is doing this. I learned of after reading a 2015 LA Times article “Millions of DNA samples stored in a warehouse worry privacy advocates.”
This is something that 1940s Germany would do. I still always wonder did the bad guys really win ww2.
You know the saying "winners write history" which implies altering truths to let villains look like heroes and vice versa good getting depicted as evil.
Sorry, you’re not trying to imply that (if there was a good and bad side) that the Nazis might’ve been the good ones, are you?
Well yes, they are here in America. It's where your Nasa came from and all the lies they tell about the 2nd law of thermodynamics they call outer space. The founders were all war criminals who came over in Operation Paperclip. Everything they tell you is a lie to push an agenda of world domination.
Sad because so much was cited as being inspired by how the US treated immigrants.
Look up project paper clip
Certainly makes a case for home birth. That's the choice we made, just my wife and myself, as I assisted in the delivery, and of course, eventually, the baby.
When NJ is involved, nothing surprises me.
Just saying home birth people seem slightly less crazy now......
I think the fact it could be sold to a third party that's the creepiest of all! The last thing you'd want to hear is your baby might be asked to donate a body part to someone because they're a genetic match. No one should have this type of power.
Or not asked. Children dissappear everyday, as do adults. Maybe the billionnaires have more secret clubs thsn the ones we know about.
That's creepy.
Your placenta, including umbilical cord also is rightfully your property. Baby boys foreskin is also your property. Look into midwifery. Your placenta can be dehydrated, powderized, put into capsules for mothers hormone replacement and other health properties. Sounds grotesque, but superbly beneficial.
unconstitutional and creepy
What!?!
The case is worthwhile. The footage of these moms going about their day with a camera in their face is sappy. It also suggests that there is nothing concrete to present to the viewers of the video, just worrying words and stock-like footage. Details, like that Texas was handing it over to the Pentagon (why? when?), and more specificity about what rights are being violated and why should be presented in these videos. More substance, please.
I agree, if this is really happening I would like to see more concrete evidence of it too. I believe that the hospitals are keeping the samples but I'd like more evidence on the claims that they are selling the samples or handing them over to the pentagon.
You are their cattle. How dare you question this.
This is exactly why I can’t understand why everyone is voluntarily submitting their DNA to 23 and me and like sites.
the definition of an unreasonable search and seizure.why is this allowed in the first place boggles the mind.
I was under the impression that in 2002, DNA sampling was federally mandated. That every state had to comply with minimum testing, but can add other tests they "see fit". The norm was to use third party company to side-step culpability.
No such law has been passed. Cite your source.
You must of seen that on a drama tv show or something cuz that isn't a thing
While I'm very glad to learn that the IJ is suing to shut this down in NJ... this clip really should have included the official NJ State reasoning for this program. Assumptions are all we have now...
What they're doing with the blood is a black box.
I don't care what they're doing with it. If they aren't allowing informed consent and opt-out, it's wrong.
You can bet that this collection methodology was never started to benefit the child, but I'd be interested in understanding the rational the state has for doing this.
the rationale
Exactly the same thing in Washington State for decades. In late 1998 (our daughter was 2), we got a letter from a university that they were doing a study and mentioned they had access to the state's PKU "samples" (not a database, the actual dried blood plotches on a little card) and used a small sample of the sample of her blood for their world-changing research study and found a marker or something that made it interesting for their study. They asked we would enroll in the study, donate more blood, do tests, and follow ups, all in the name of making the future a better place or some such spiel. NO THANK YOU! Back then I had no idea that it was kept on file after the PKU screening until that incident.
We have the medical advances we do today because researchers of the past were able to use materials from the bodies of people who came before us. So I would have been tentatively inclined to say yes, as a matter of civic duty, but I might have wanted a lawyer to look over the agreement. Sadly, today you have to protect yourself from “repurposing” of your data that goes beyond its original intended purpose. And don’t get me started on the abusive nature of the agreements embedded in every single phone or computer app these days.
I was told we had no choice for this. I did not consent. When I asked how, they gave me a reference to an outdated law that had expired. Most members of the hospital gave me a look like, no one ever asks why. I had to look like the jerk father that didn’t want my kid tested for disease but when you research this the odds of these problems are so unlikely a parent shouldn’t be forced when the treatments for most things mentioned are literally just diet changes. I wish I could be a part of this lawsuit to protect the core of the constitutional rights.
Not testing is dumb and irresponsible to your child and the society you both live in. Your narrative is not the same as what this lawsuit represents.
@@ShainAndrews The reason is not the concern by the state collection is collection
@@the_expidition427 Who are you? Do you always inject yourself into conversations?
@@ShainAndrews
You are on a publicly accessible forum. This is not a private conversation. Anyone and everyone can chime in if they'd like.
@@speedracertv4934 Again... who are you? Do you always inject yourself into conversations? Ever notice the dumb asses making verbose claims are NEVER the ones responding?
In Texas we were told it was to identify P.K.U. disease which could cause permenant brain damage if this amino acid is consumed. I have yet to meet anyone who has this genetic problem.
The hospital will tell parents that if they don't consent to the PKU test (heel stick) the baby doesn't leave the hospital. How legal is that? I was a phlebotomist. There is an opt out for parents on the form. Know your rights parents!
If they want to ask the parents to use to use/sell the blood for research purposes then by all means, ask. But don't take it with the intention of not telling the parents and with plans to do whatever the heck they want with it. That's a part of the their baby's body, the parent should have the right to say what happens to it once the testing is done.
Why is this even a question?
Big Brother is flexing his muscles more every day.
Sheds a little more light on Cain .
Maybe not the quite the villain we are meant to believe ?
Secretly? If this is in the state law, tough. The tree of liberty.....
Thanks for bringing attention to this!
How many have they used to find/ convict a parent?
And how many convictions will this overturn?
Great question. But this is only one of an unknown number of uses for the data.
They say 23 years? What's to stop them from keeping the sample for 53 years?
The blood should be considered a body part.
I gave birth at home and refused all tests. I highly recommend it.
Welcome to New Jersey, the FU state. Don’t believe me? Take a drive through. All the drivers of New Jersey will greet you with that sign.
NJ state government has been convicted of felony offenses numerous times. Embezzlement, laundering, trafficking, the whole gamut... It's a criminal state government. Look up the history if you haven't - it'll blow you away
And I thought the Postal Service and the DMV selling my information was bad enough . . .
Maryland does the same thing...I told them NFW when she was born they explained they need these 4 drops...I told them she only has 100drops....We did the test a month later but I knew it was a racket to get her DNA
Actually it is not a racket. There are a few diseases that need to be caught right away. My husband gives up his long holiday weekends to get in and make sure testing still happens even for babies born on holidays so those few babies with the critical conditions are caught in time to treat and save their lives.
@sarahschreffler5407 It is a racket. The test is for a disease nobody ever heard about until the day a child is born..No doubt there is a benefit and the test is performed. But it is a racket to get everyone's DNA. A DNA register....And if I wanted to make a DNA register I would do the exact same thing.
@@sarahschreffler5407 I like this point. It's important to differentiate the initial use of the blood drops for testing from the long-term storage and access to the data from that blood.
@@sarahschreffler5407It's a racket if people don't get a choice or are coerced into doing it. I think you are rationalizing your husband stepping on peoples rights for the greater good. The greater good is in fact people's rights.
@@2AFreeState Its not the greater good. it's the individual good of the newborns who survive because their conditions are caught in time to make sure they are treated before they die.
Once again, New Jersey proves it’s the state where rights go to die
Well maybe your baby should have told the government "No" to taking the test after being born. It's time these babies to grow up and take responsibility for their actions and/or inactions.
Now look into this, who owns your child's birth certificate?. If you go to the state and request it they will give you a copy but they own the original. Example, you own your car you have the title in your possession so where is the original title to your child?.
It would be interesting to put the person who made this policy in the spotlight.
Exactly we need some context on this story. What’s the history, who are the key players, etc
Yeah... I'm Certain those samples were "destroyed"
That's the over regulated, tyrannical state of Blue Jersey for you.
They're literally felons. NJ has been convicted of numerous felony offenses.
So keeping a record of every baby’s blood.
But…
Compare that to common acceptable practices. Law enforcement keeps a record of fingerprints of every citizen that’s ever been booked. Exactly how is that ‘allowable’? I get arrested, I’m identified, my prints are taken, but after I’ve served my sentence- why are my prints allowed to be kept?
Then by extrapolation on that accepted practice; say the cops want my DNA but lacking sufficient probable cause to obtain a warrant, what’s to stop the cops from setting me up with a ‘pre-textual’ traffic stop? Claiming I’m drunk or high, the cops can force me to submit to a breathalyzer or drug swab.
But what happens to the DNA laden tube after the breathalyzer/what happens to the swab after the drug test? Since the tests were deemed lawful, how long can the cops keep and use that seized DNA sample?
Really consider the most primary legal concept - Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty. So if I have the presumption of innocence, then how is my DNA, blood sample, or fingerprints allowed to be recorded and stored?
Even my booking photo, once my time is served that photo should be destroyed, wiped from every database. To keep my identifying data is Prejudice!
*The simple solution to this would be if the judge made the maintaining my identifying data a condition of my sentence (but that would give us the ability to legally challenge that condition at time of sentencing).
It’s a straight up invasion/abuse of our rights that’s completely ignored.
Keeping fingerprints vs keeping blood: Please realize the drastic difference.
The state doesnt administer those tests, its the hospitals. The hospitals should be the focus of those suits.
Unless they're only saving the test results under order of state regulators.
It sounds like the state requires that the tests be done. The state controls the hospitals.
@@keres993good point.
The state requires the hospital to do it for them probably some kickback money the hospital gets on the back end the IJ should do a FOIA on tracking the money who pays for it BTW their genetic testing and the laws to protect gene 🧬 discrimination can be changed any time.
How do you think the states have possession of the blood samples?
The states require the hospitals to collect them and give them to the states. This isn't an issue with the hospitals, it's the state governments that are causing the problem.
Just have a home birth. Quit asking for permission and assistance to do something our species has been doing since we were a species.
No such luck. New Jersey also requires midwives to do the testing for at-home births: NJ Admin Code § 8:18-1.5 Responsibilities of the birth attendant (a) The birth attendant shall: 1. Submit or cause to be submitted to the testing laboratory an initial blood specimen taken before the infant is 48 hours old
This will sound like conspiracy theory. But....your DNA IS BEING patented by companies that obtain it in various ways (ancestry websites, etc. ).
This sounds like insurance bilking!
Children should be born at home, not "in the delivery room." This doesn't happen at home. If you think hospitals care about babyies' safety, consider that they do male genital mutilation on them.
Nothing new or original here, simply herd management of human resources. Just inform yourself of the highly successful livestock industry for all the easy answers. USDA prime, choice or select!
The state essentially owns you after you’re born. Why do you think on all your legal documents i.e. birth certificate, drivers license, social security card, marriage license, etc., are capitalized? Because you are a corporation and not a person to the state. Corporations are treated differently than people. They did this by design and people don’t even realize it.
So many people say this but no one says how to avoid it or what paths people can take to change this procedure. Why not tell people how to mitigate this rather than just doom and gloom
@@ducklingwarrior It’s not doom and gloom, it’s just the way it is. But people can’t fix if they don’t know about it. The more that are aware, the better.
@@privatepilot4064 okay but how do you avoid it?
Destroyed? Yea, right.
Think about how many times a day we are exposed to countless advertising on the radio, internet, and TV for medication and the newest injectables!
😮😮😮
The state doesn’t need these records, bc the official proof of birth is a BIRTH CERTIFICATE! There is no archival reason for the cards to be kept.
This makes a home birth more appealing.
Which other states do this aside from what's listed in the video? For example is this in all 50 or maybe just 40?
Where does cord blood go? A sample was taken at each of my children’s deliveries. No consent asked for, just automatic. At my first child’s birth, I inquired about it. The explanation sounded like it was harvested for future use of that child developed disease or cancer. But it’s not as if my kids actually have access to that sample or those stem cells, so where’d it go? Who was the beneficiary?
Wouldn't that break HIPPA laws......patient privacy
I’ve read that this isn’t some nefarious scheme to steal children’s blood. The law requires the tests (a good thing), but the law didn’t specify the records needed to be destroyed, so NJ records retention law kicks in and they keep it for 23 years.
There’s no plan on using the blood for or against a child. But the law should specify how long, and for what reason, the blood samples are kept.
Time to bust out another check to the IJ!
Doesn't anyone realise that when a birth certificate is recorded the child becomes a 'ward of the state'?
That's what gives child protection services legal right to your kid.
Btw.. It's not just babies. Anytime you have blood work done, they doing something with it that they don't tell you!