The state of Texas was caught selling babies’ blood samples to the Pentagon while several other states have also been caught stealing and selling the DNA of newborn babies to third parties
There’s something not quite right about that little “heel-prick” test that hospitals routinely do on newborns. They say it’s to detect disease but, if that’s the case, why do some states try to keep the DNA samples taken during these procedures and store them for decades without ever telling the parents? After doing a bit of research and reading over a recently filed lawsuit, I have some information to share that presents a clearer picture as to why it’s almost impossible to get a newborn baby out of a hospital without having its little heel jabbed.
Thankfully, some parents are wising up and going on the legal offensive against the hospitals and states who are colluding in secret.
A lawsuit has been filed by the Institute for Justice over a state program in New Jersey that has been obtaining, and secretly holding onto, blood from newborn babies.
The Institute for Justice explained in a press release it is representing two sets of parents in the case.
The state claims it can use the DNA from the babies’ 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. This same demand exists in all states.
But, according to the attorneys representing the parents, what makes New Jersey different is that, “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.” (emphasis mine)
That bit about selling DNA to the Pentagon “to create a registry” jumped out at me.
It’s a documented fact that part of United Nations Agenda 2030 is to create a birth registry for all people. Look it up.
Sustainable Development Goal 16.9 of Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development states, “Create a legal identity for all, including birth registration, by 2030,” and this “has been acknowledged as crucial for advancing the 2030 Agenda commitment to leave no one behind,” according to the website of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). On that same web page, they state:
Article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights states that everybody has the right to a legal identity. Sustainable Development Goal Target 16.9 (“legal identity for all, including birth registration, by 2030”) has been acknowledged as crucial for advancing the 2030 Agenda commitment to leave no one behind. However, hundreds of millions of people still lack proper identification, and about half of the world’s countries do not have a universal system for registering births and deaths.
The United Nations Legal Identity Agenda Task Force, co-chaired by UNDP, UNDESA, and UNICEF, is working with Member States to ensure that more than 300 million people acquire a legal identity by 2025. UNDP is strengthening the capacity of Member States to develop holistic, country-owned, sustainable and interoperable civil registration, vital statistics and identity management systems. UNDP is working to increase the number of countries that address legal identity issues as a foundational pillar of national development plans and strategies and ensure that everyone, without exception, has access to essential public goods and services.
The UNDP site then steers those wanting more information “On UNDP’s work in this important area,” to visit the following websites:
So, with just a little researching we find that this drive to scoop up DNA from newborns is tied to creating a global ID system, and a global digital ID at that.
It’s highly likely that the overarching reason this DNA is being taken and secretly stored has little or nothing to do with fighting disease and everything to do with fulfilling the U.N. mandate for all nations to create a unique biometric identifier on every person, which then can be digitized and filed away for future use in a fully digitized society. With every newborn having a DNA sample already on file with the government, think how easy it would be to create a biometric digital ID for all humans, in full compliance with U.N. Agenda 2030 and a future global government.
If New Jersey has a program to turn over DNA to the federal government, you can bet it’s happening in other states as well. We just haven’t found out about it yet. And why would the U.S. Department of Defense, of all agencies, want to get its hands on this DNA from every newborn baby?
In fact, the New Jersey legal team said 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. California is also collecting and storing the DNA of infants without parental consent.
The New Jersey Monitor reports that more than 100,000 babies are born each year in New Jersey, meaning the state has stockpiled millions of blood spots from its decades-old newborn screening program. Yet, a handout given to new parents fails to disclose that the state stores the samples for 23 years, nor does it explain why.
Rob Frommer, a senior lawyer for the Institute for Justice, stated:
“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. 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, N.J., parents, Erica and Jeremiah Jedynak, and the Rev. Hannah Lovaglio, a mother of two sons in Cranbury, N.J.
Patrick Wood, editor in chieef of Technocracy.News, says the hospital industry has a history of selling our personal data to the highest bidder.
Wood stated in response to my research:
“The hospital industry has largely been taken over by Technocrats who practice ‘evidence-based medicine.’ You see the Technocrat mind at work when it selectively collects certain data while ignoring other data. Thus, collecting DNA from newborns for sequencing and permanent storage should be seen as a prime directive for Technocrats. Why? Because this is foundational for the soon-and-coming global digital system that will control all humans on Earth.”
Wood said this propensity of the medical industry toward technocratic chicanery is seen all over the professional literature.
“The Holy Grail of a digital ID system is DNA,” he said.
For instance, Biometric Update wrote in July,
Biometric identification solutions have become firmly established in our everyday lives, whether at security checks at airports or through facial recognition on smartphones – and the next generation is already waiting. DNA-based processes not only ensure precise identification of individuals but also raise data protection to a completely new level.
In addition to common biometric methods such as fingerprints, iris scans or facial recognition, DNA ID heralds the coming evolutionary step in personal identification and verification. The groundbreaking results of rapid DNA technologies will inexorably increase their acceptance, and it is foreseeable that the technology will find its way into further areas of life. In the future, citizens and governments will benefit equally from the advantages of fast and reliable DNA-based personal identification.
So, Wood asks, should we dismiss the collecting of newborn blood to harvest DNA for ulterior purposes?
One final tell that the technocrat mindset is at work is the fact they have hidden this practice right under our nose. That is, until a few parents stumbled across it and blew the whistle
