WORLD : There’s something sinister about that little “heel-prick” test that hospitals routinely do on newborns. They say it’s to detect disease but, if that’s the case, why do some states try to keep the DNA samples taken during these procedures and store them for decades without ever telling the parents? asked journalist Leo Hohmann, who says “We know it’s been happening in at least one state and several other states have been caught trying, so this may be more widespread than we thought.”
Is the government secretly stealing and storing the DNA of newborn babies
We know it’s been happening in at least one state and several other states have been caught trying, so this may be more widespread than we thought
Some parents are wising up and going on the offensive.
A lawsuit has been filed by the Institute for Justice over a state program in New Jersey that has been obtaining, and secretly holding onto, blood from newborn babies.
The Institute for Justice explained in a press release it is representing two sets of parents in the case.
The state claims it can use the DNA from the babies’ blood samples for any reason, without informed consent from parents.
The case charges that state law in New Jersey demands that when babies are born, blood be taken and tested for various diseases. This same demand exists in all states.
But, according to the attorneys representing the parents, what makes New Jersey different is that, “after the testing is over, New Jersey’s Department of Health keeps the leftover blood for 23 years. The state does not ask parents for their consent to keep their babies’ blood, failing to even inform parents that it will hold on to the residual blood.
The only way parents could learn about such retention is by proactively looking it up on one of the third-party websites listed on the bottom of the card they’re given after the blood draw.
“And, once the state has the blood, it can use it however it wishes, including selling it to third parties, giving it to police without a warrant, or even selling it to the Pentagon to create a registry—as previously happened in Texas.”
That bit about selling it to the Pentagon “to create a registry” jumped out at me.
Sustainable Development Goal 16.9
It’s a documented fact that part of United Nations Agenda 2030 is to create a birth registry for all people. Look it up.
Sustainable Development Goal 16.9 of Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development states, “Create a legal identity for all, including birth registration, by 2030,” and this “has been acknowledged as crucial for advancing the 2030 Agenda commitment to leave no one behind,” according to the website of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). On that same web page, they state:
Article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights states that everybody has the right to a legal identity. Sustainable Development Goal Target 16.9 (“legal identity for all, including birth registration, by 2030”) has been acknowledged as crucial for advancing the 2030 Agenda commitment to leave no one behind. However, hundreds of millions of people still lack proper identification, and about half of the world’s countries do not have a universal system for registering births and deaths.
The United Nations Legal Identity Agenda Task Force, co-chaired by UNDP, UNDESA, and UNICEF, is working with Member States to ensure that more than 300 million people acquire a legal identity by 2025. UNDP is strengthening the capacity of Member States to develop holistic, country-owned, sustainable and interoperable civil registration, vital statistics and identity management systems.
UNDP is working to increase the number of countries that address legal identity issues as a foundational pillar of national development plans and strategies and ensure that everyone, without exception, has access to essential public goods and services. Source
The UNDP site then steers those wanting more information “On UNDP’s work in this important area,” to visit the following websites:
- The UN Legal Identity Agenda Task Force
- Digital Legal ID Governance
So, with just a little researching we find that this drive to scoop up DNA from newborns is tied to creating a global ID system, and a global digital ID at that.
It’s highly likely that the overarching reason this DNA is being taken and secretly stored has little or nothing to do with fighting disease and everything to do with fulfilling the U.N. mandate for all nations to create a unique biometric identifier on every person, which then can be digitized and filed away for future use in a fully digitized society. With every newborn having a DNA sample already on file with the government, think how easy it would be to create a biometric digital ID for all humans, in full compliance with U.N. Agenda 2030 and a future global government.
If New Jersey has a program to turn over DNA to the federal government, you can bet it’s happening in other states as well. We just haven’t found out about it yet. And why would the U.S. Department of Defense, of all agencies, want to get its hands on this DNA from every newborn baby?
In fact, similar lawsuits already have been brought against Texas, Minnesota and Michigan, and in those cases settlements have ordered the destruction of blood samples held by the states, or the state has voluntarily destroyed them.Source
The New Jersey Monitor reports that more than 100,000 babies are born each year in New Jersey, meaning the state has stockpiled millions of blood spots from its decades-old newborn screening program. Yet a handout given to new parents doesn’t divulge that the state stores the samples for 23 years, nor explains why.
Rob Frommer, a senior lawyer for the Institute for Justice, stated: “Parents have a right to informed consent if the state wants to keep their children’s blood for decades and use it for purposes other than screening for diseases. New Jersey’s policy of storing baby blood and DNA and using that genetic information however it wants is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of all New Jersey parents and their newborns.”
The plaintiffs are two Boonton, N.J., parents, Erica and Jeremiah Jedynak, and the Rev. Hannah Lovaglio, a mother of two sons in Cranbury, N.J.
Lovaglio told the Monitor, “It’s not right that the state can enter an incredibly intimate moment, the tender days of childbirth, and take something from our children which is then held on to for 23 years. The lack of consent and transparency causes me to question the intent and makes me worried for my children’s future selves.”
BY PATRICIA HARRITY
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.