Congress is going backwards! How could they even consider this bill?
It's legalized genetic discrimination, and no protections on how the data can be used (or who it can be sold to).
It's legalized genetic discrimination, and no protections on how the data can be used (or who it can be sold to).
I read the text of HR 1313 [2] and can't actually find the part where it allows penalties described in this article.
The final paragraph seems close, but not quite what is described:
>(c) Rule Of Construction.—Nothing in subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be construed to prevent an employer that is offering a wellness program to an employee from requiring such employee, within 45 days from the date the employee first has an opportunity to earn a reward, to request a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver of the otherwise applicable standard). Nothing in subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be construed to prevent an employer from imposing a reasonable time period, based upon all the facts and circumstances, during which the employee must complete the reasonable alternative standard. Such a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver of the otherwise applicable standard) is provided for in section 2705(j)(3)(D) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300 gg–4(j)(3)(D)) (and any regulations promulgated with respect to such section by the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or the Secretary of the Treasury).
[0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/0...
[1]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313...
[2]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313...
This is the sort of thing the Republicans plan on replacing the ACA with.
Rich will have designer genes and protected estates, poor will be locked out of any kind social advancement.
Say you're a politician, and one of your opponents discovers you have the genes. Good luck dealing with that shit
This isn't meant as rhetorical, and I'm not trying to score some point. I'm honestly not sure where I land on this. Part of me wants to say "tough noogies, it's worth it to stop those kiddie diddlers" and another part is going, "whoa nellie, what if most of those people are completely innocent but will now forever live with this awful stigma?"
I think there's a multi-track drifting joke in here somewhere too, but I haven't had my coffee yet.
See, we don't even need genetic tests. Just don't hire left-handers under 5'8" and we'll be okay. And remember: blacks are more likely to be criminals and Jews have big noses.[2]
[1] http://www.alternet.org/are-some-men-born-pedophiles-new-sci...
[2] I know it's hard to tell on the internet, but this is sarcasm. Please keep in mind Poe's Law[3] and take a deep breath.
Suppose instead there were a gene found which caused a toxic reaction in some children. Some, but not all, children exposed to these substances might sicken or even die.
I suspect that in such a scenario, if the evidence showing correlation was compelling - you would be OK with mandating testing, and separating children from contact with known carriers of the gene - at least until it could be better understood and/or treated, cured, the harm mitigated, or what have you.
I would further suggest that if YOU were discovered to be a carrier of the gene, that you yourself would probably feel an obligation to self-report and avoid any contact with children, so as to prevent any accidental exposure and harm.
Ah yes, the clarion call of modern capitalism.
Why not just make the data free and open to all?
Knowing more doesn't always lead to better outcomes in a biased system.[1]
I'm a socialist in the old school 'greater good' sense but you have to draw the line somewhere and I think for things like DNA that line should be drawn extremely carefully.
I'm a big advocate of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
This just doesn't seem too completely unattainable to me. The average able-bodied person, properly motivated and living frugally, should be able to secure a few acres over one or two summers, easily.
... Unless you're talking about true "Swiss Family Robinson" style independence from any and all societal benefit or influence. Because then, yeah, that is pretty much not possible any more. Finding someplace a little out of the way, and "living off the land" in relative peace, however - that remains quite attainable.
Sure there is, are you familiar with the Age Discrimination in Emloyment Act of 1967 [1]?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_Discrimination_in_Employ...