(Molly Bruns, Headline USA) A group of parents in New Jersey gathered together to fight the state’s practice of taking and keeping blood samples from newborns without parental knowledge or consent.
“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,” said the Rev. Hannah Lovaglio, a Cranbury mother of two, who is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, according to the Institute for Justice.
The little-known practice allows doctors to take the blood and keep it for decades, permitting medical facilities to use the material in whatever way they choose.
“The lack of consent and transparency causes me to question the intent and makes me worried for my children’s future selves,” Lovaglio said. “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.”
State law requires medical institutions to take blood samples and test for various diseases. All 50 states require blood screenings for newborn babies by law, but what hospitals do with the blood afterward changes locally.
New Jersey’s Department of Health reportedly stores blood samples for 23 years.
State law does not require hospitals to gain parental consent for the blood samples or inform parents that they plan to store residual blood for other purposes, including: selling the blood to unidentified third parties, giving the blood to police without a warrant and selling it to the Pentagon to create a national DNA registry.
“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,” said IJ Senior Attorney Rob Frommer. “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.”
IJ’s complaint said hospitals hid information about the blood storage on a third-party website listed on an informational card providing details about the blood draw. Parents had to actively seek out the information on the obscure website in order to find it.
“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,” said Christie Hebert, another IJ attorney. “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.”
States such as Texas, Minnesota and Michigan have faced similar lawsuits, with varying results.
Texas destroyed 5.3 million blood samples, and now all samples taken must be destroyed after two years.
State courts forced Minnesota to destroy 1.1 million blood samples.
Michigan agreed to destroy 3 million samples but has yet to do so as the case continues to circulate through the courts.
