Current Events > New Jersey being sued for keeping and misusing blood samples from newborns

(+) Yeah! (+)

TRENTON, N.J.Today, a group of New Jersey parents teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a federal lawsuit challenging New Jerseys practice of keeping blood samples taken from newborn babies for 23 years, all without parents knowledge or consent. Not only does New Jersey hold onto the blood, it can use the blood samples in any manner it chooses.

When babies are born in New Jersey, state law requires that blood be taken from the newborns and tested for diseases such as cystic fibrosis, hormonal deficiencies, and other immunity issues. All states perform similar tests.
But, after the testing is over, New Jerseys 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 theyre 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 registryas previously happened in Texas.

Parents have a right to informed consent if the state wants to keep their childrens blood for decades and use it for purposes other than screening for diseases, said IJ Senior Attorney Rob Frommer. New Jerseys 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 challenging this law are two Boonton parents, Erica and Jeremiah Jedynak, and Rev. Hannah Lovaglio, a Cranbury mother of two.
Its 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, said Hannah. The lack of consent and transparency causes me to question the intent and makes me worried for my childrens future selves.

As a mother, I deserve the right to decide whether or not the government takes blood from my son and holds onto it for decades past its claimed use.
Although all 50 states and the District of Columbia require blood screening for newborns, whether a state will destroy leftover newborn blood, return it, or keep it with a form of parental consent varies on a state-by-state basis.

What makes New Jerseys program so uniquely disturbing is the complete lack of safeguards for future abuse and the lack of consent, which leave the program ripe for abuse, said IJ Attorney Christie Hebert. Parents should not have to worry if the state is going to use the blood it said it was taking from their baby to test for diseases for other, unrelated purposes.

New Jersey is not alone in facing legal issues for the lack of consent when obtaining blood and over what the state does with the blood. Texas, Minnesota, and Michigan have all faced lawsuits over their retention of blood samples without informed consent from the parents. The 2009 lawsuit in Texas resulted in the state destroying 5.3 million blood samples, and now, all blood samples obtained after 2012 must be destroyed after two years. A 2014 settlement in the Minnesota lawsuit resulted in 1.1 million blood samples being destroyed. In 2022, Michigan agreed to destroy 3 million blood spots, but that lawsuit continues to move forward.

Its incredibly misleading for the state to tell parents they are simply drawing blood from their babies to test for diseases when it could be sold to third parties or used by other government agencies to build invasive databases or registries, said IJ Attorney Brian Morris. As Texas and other states have shown, these concerns arent hypothetical.

https://ij.org/press-release/new-jersey-parents-file-federal-class-action-lawsuit-challenging-states-secret-retention-of-newborn-blood-for-23-years/

"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 theyre given after the blood draw"

Am I off base for thinking this is just a case of RTFM? But I suppose law should be made clearer wherever it can.

Somebody explain to me why I should care about this. Like... what nefarious things should I be worried about people doing with a few drops of my child's blood? Or mine for that matter. And how does that affect me?

Crimson_Corsair posted...

Somebody explain to me why I should care about this. Like... what nefarious things should I be worried about people doing with a few drops of my child's blood? Or mine for that matter. And how does that affect me?

Potential DNA tracking is kinda spooky. Potential SUPER CLONES is very unlikely but kinda spooky.

Crimson_Corsair posted...

Somebody explain to me why I should care about this. Like... what nefarious things should I be worried about people doing with a few drops of my child's blood? Or mine for that matter. And how does that affect me?

Nothing worth writing home about. If they win this the next step will be to prevent the state from taking any blood at all to check for diseases.

Guide posted...

Potential DNA tracking is kinda spooky. Potential SUPER CLONES is very unlikely but kinda spooky.

Why would someone track your DNA when it would be so much easier, cheaper and faster to just track your cellphone?

Also looked up what IJ actually is, unsurprisingly, its a libertarian institution.

Crimson_Corsair posted...

Somebody explain to me why I should care about this. Like... what nefarious things should I be worried about people doing with a few drops of my child's blood? Or mine for that matter. And how does that affect me?

I mean, this seems kinda fucky

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 registryas previously happened in Texas.

What are they gonna do with it? Create Big Boss clones or something? lol

they're giving it all to tom cruise.

Yeah, idk why they would want it as it seems like a nightmare to keep all that. Maybe it's too much work to properly dispose of it?

I knew it! Chris Christie is a gluttonous vampire!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PPHZsdN47P8

Yeah, if that can be retrieved/sent without a warrant, I would have some issues with that.

It's one of those things that's relatively minor in a bubble, but giving the government too much freedom with our personal data without consent is definitely nothing that should just be accepted.

The issue with DNA tracking is that insurance companies will obtain it and use the information to deny or charge more to potential customers based on their risk factors.

Its very likely already happening to people stupid enough to use services like Ancestry.com and 23andme (not to mention their poor family members who are also being indirectly tracked due to being a relative of the idiots.)

The government should not have my DNA on file if I have not been convicted of a crime

Doe posted...

The government should not have my DNA on file if I have not been convicted of a crime

What if you die in an explosion and they need your DNA to identify you from pieces of tissue splattered on the ground or walls?

Crimson_Corsair posted...

Somebody explain to me why I should care about this.

People profiting off your DNA while you receive no compensation?

Tanthalas posted...

What if you die in an explosion and they need your DNA to identify you from pieces of tissue splattered on the ground or walls?

what a ridiculous hypothetical

Tanthalas posted...

What if you die in an explosion and they need your DNA to identify you from pieces of tissue splattered on the ground or walls?

Tough shit. I'm MIA with a giant asterisk that I was last seen next to the giant explosion.

Just another vampire scheme. Their masquerade is falling apart

Tanthalas posted...

Why would someone track your DNA when it would be so much easier, cheaper and faster to just track your cellphone?

For non-cellphone situations?

AnsestralRecall posted...

The issue with DNA tracking is that insurance companies will obtain it and use the information to deny or charge more to potential customers based on their risk factors.

Maybe our libertarian friends can fight for affordable health care so medical insurance wouldn't be necessary, but if I'm not mistaken they're on the "got mine fuck yours" side of the political aisle.

AnsestralRecall posted...

what a ridiculous hypothetical

Not exactly impossible you know, but if you prefer a more reasonable argument, these blood samples could be used for research to help fight genetic diseases. Instead we have fear-mongers and bad faith actors trying to get them destroyed.

Guide posted...

For non-cellphone situations?

Are what exactly are these non-cellphone situations?

Tanthalas posted...

Are what exactly are these non-cellphone situations?

The situations where you don't have a cellphone...?

Guide posted...

The situations where you don't have a cellphone...?

/rollseyes

Darnit, I thought I was missing some of my blood. Darn government, taking my blood a life time ago.

That's right, I'm from New Jersey. I'm not proud of it, but if you ask me that in public I have to act like your state is the one that sucks. Of course, I do live in the bad part of NJ. How bad? It's a place where Floridians go on vacation.

Tanthalas posted...

Maybe our libertarian friends can fight for affordable health care so medical insurance wouldn't be necessary, but if I'm not mistaken they're on the "got mine fuck yours" side of the political aisle.

Not exactly impossible you know, but if you prefer a more reasonable argument, these blood samples could be used for research to help fight genetic diseases. Instead we have fear-mongers and bad faith actors trying to get them destroyed.

Until we are in a situation where the people aren't likely to get fucked by this (literally not fear mongering considering 23andme have been found to be selling their clients data) it's imperative to oppose shit like this.

Fix the healthcare pay to live system, then explicitly consensual gathering is fine. Nothing should ever be taken with manufactured consent (which having a small text line at the bottom of some sheet of paper very much is.)

Tanthalas posted...

/rollseyes

Not everyone has cellphones literally all the time, don't be silly.

AnsestralRecall posted...

Until we are in a situation where the people aren't likely to get fucked by this (literally not fear mongering considering 23andme have been found to be selling their clients data) it's imperative to oppose shit like this.

Fix the healthcare pay to live system, then explicitly consensual gathering is fine. Nothing should ever be taken with manufactured consent (which having a small text line at the bottom of some sheet of paper very much is.)

So again, lets get rid of valuable resources that could actually help people just to appease fearmongering bullshit and libertarian assholes, the same assholes that wont lift a finger to actually help people get affordable healthcare.

Guide posted...

Not everyone has cellphones literally all the time, don't be silly.

/rolleyes

Tanthalas posted...

So again, lets get rid of valuable resources that could actually help people just to appease fearmongering bullshit and libertarian assholes, the same assholes that wont lift a finger to actually help people get affordable healthcare.

its a liability far more than it is a valuable resource until we eliminate the misuse that is ALREADY OCCURRING with our genetic information

its not to appease any libertarians, its because ITS LITERALLY HAPPENING