This article was originally published by the WND News Center.
(WND News Center) – A lawsuit has been filed by the Institute for Justice over a New Jersey state program that has been obtaining, and secretly retaining, blood from newborns.
The IJ explained it is representing a number of parents in the case.
It’s because right now “the state can currently use the DNA from the 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, similar to other states.
“But, 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,” the legal team warned.
“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,” Rob Frommer, a senior IJ lawyer, said. “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 parents, Erica and Jeremiah Jedynak, and Rev. Hannah Lovaglio, a Cranbury mother of two.
Lovaglio explained, “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.”
Christie Hebert, a lawyer for IJ, explained New Jersey’s practice is problematic: “What makes New Jersey’s 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. 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.”
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.
Reprinted with permission from the WND News Center.