Socialist Squirrel

Bears Gone Wild

Powered by ScribeFire.

Worst Football Play In History

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Obama Deception HQ Full length version

Powered by ScribeFire.

Anti-IWW (Anti-Socialist Squirrel Gold!)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Mama Grizzly’s? I know Grizzly and honeys, Your No GRIZZLY!

You can’t dress a bunch of Socialist Squirrels up in bear costumes and call yourself Grizzly! Your all Nuts!

The original Mama  Grizzly:  Betsy Everson wife of “The Grizzly Bear: E.W. Everson who recalled the first Governor in USA history…A socialist squirrel Governor that was in fact a Non Partisan League Socialist Squirrel on the Republican ticket.

Betsy came to this country from Norway.  Rode a pine log wagon to North Dakota, fell in love and married the “Grizzly Bear” E.W. Everson, pioneered, homesteaded bringing up her natural born children and a really special adopted little girl named Helen.  She smoked a corn cob pipe and probably still 6 feet under work circles around you Socialist Squirrel nuts that think that the Federal Government gives you anything.  Betsy, a true Mama Grizzly!  You all are just pathetic Socialist Squirrels that do not even understand you are slaves on the plantations of dependence.

Mama Grizzly’s?  You do not even know what it takes to get Grizzly. 

Powered by ScribeFire.

Milton Friedman – Socialism vs. Capitalism

Powered by ScribeFire.

Baby DNA Court Ruling Disregards Constitutional Rights

Baby DNA Court Ruling Disregards
Constitutional Rights

(St. Paul/Minneapolis) – Yesterday, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled to affirm the lower court’s dismissal of the 9-parent lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). The parents had challenged the collection, retention, use, and dissemination of newborn DNA by MDH as unconstitutional and in violation of the Minnesota Genetic Privacy Act.

“The Judges dismissed consent rights under the state genetic privacy law and found retention and use law in the newborn screening statute where there is none,” said Twila Brase, president of the Citizens’ Council on Health Care (CCHC).

“As was underscored by the recent Texas Court’s decision on newborn DNA lawsuit, the Minnesota Department of Health’s taking, retention and use of newborn citizen DNA without informed written parental consent is an unprecedented and unconstitutional seizure of the individual’s secret self,” she said.

“The judges’ decision is a temporary loss for parents and children. But it’s not the end of the road. We expect more court action on this case,” Brase concluded.

CCHC releases the following seven concerns regarding the judges’ ruling.

*

FALSE CLAIM: Without showing clear evidence of “express authority,” the Court claims that the power to retain and use newborn DNA was (and is) expressly authorized in the newborn screening statute before the privacy law passed in 2006. (p 9 & 14) Using this claim, they dismiss the parent’s claims under the Minnesota Genetic Privacy Act. However, the authority to retain and use is not expressly written in the newborn screening statute, evidenced by the fact that the MDH has attempted unsuccessfully for three years in a row at the Minnesota state legislature to obtain an exemption of the screening program from the Genetic Privacy Act’s consent requirements.
*

SWEEPING CLAIM: The Judges admit that the newborn screening statute “does not directly address” the health department’s authority to conduct research using the newborn baby’s DNA, but then state that the commissioner’s general powers to “conduct studies and investigations, collect and analyze health and vital data, and identify and describe health problems” are sufficient authority to “retain blood specimens after testing to be used for further newborn screening-related research…or to otherwise refine the newborn screening program for public health purposes. (pp. 9-10)
*

DISREGARDS CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS: Asserting such broad general authority to conduct public health research on the public from the moment of birth asserts a broad public health exemption from the “search and seizure” prohibitions of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution—and of Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution. (Also, p. 14 footnote)
*

“PUBLIC HEALTH” OVER PRIVACY: The Judges presume that the state legislature favors public health over private interests and do not acknowledge that genetic privacy is a public health interest. (p. 12) A public health authority that violates the genetic rights of citizens and becomes intrusive in citizen lives is a public health authority that will not be trusted when there are serious public health issues at hand.
*

CIRCULAR CLAIM: The Judges erroneously read into the newborn screening statute authority to retain and use newborn blood spots that is not expressly stated in the statute. The Court then uses the fact that parents have not challenged the newborn screening statute to dismiss the parents claims against the State’s unconsented retention and use. (p. 14)
*

“WARRANTED” INTRUSION: The Judges rest on a California case to claim that the retention and use of newborn DNA without written informed consent of parents and individuals is not an unwarranted intrusion of privacy (p. 14).
*

CONTRADICTORY: After stating that the Commissioner has broad general powers to conduct research and studies of any kind, the Judges state “any use of the specimens for purposes not related to the newborn screening program is subject to the written informed consent requirements of the genetic privacy act” (p. 13). While MDH claims not to have used the blood of the 25 appellant-children for research, health officials admit to using the newborn blood specimens of more than 50,000 children for purposes including, “non-newborn screening efforts in the realm of emerging public health studies.” (p. 6 footnote)

MEDIA CONTACT:
Twila Brase, President
www.healthcarefreedom.us
www.protectbabyDNA.org
651-646-8935

- CCHC -

Citizens’ Council on Health Care supports freedom for patients and doctors, medical
innovation, and the right to a confidential patient-doctor relationship.

Citizens’ Council on Health Care
1954 University Avenue West, Suite 8, St. Paul, MN 55104
Phone: 651.646.8935
Fax: 651.646.0100, e-mail

Powered by ScribeFire.

Meet Taxin’ Tarryl

Powered by ScribeFire.

Conservative women vs. Liberal women

Powered by ScribeFire.

Mainstream Media Protects Terrorist…

Powered by ScribeFire.