Did anyone opt out of a Newborn Screening?

ToledoDeux · July 2010

Word. And how about this lovely follow-up to her quesadilla tantrum:

yeshuahamasshiah:
Raving Rabbids:
I'll just go to Taco Bell and order whatever is on the 99 cent menu. All that "meat" is basically the same.

this would explain why you have to loose 100lbs ... That is how much I weigh.

preg_amy · July 2010

ToledoDeux:
Word. And how about this lovely follow-up to her quesadilla tantrum:
yeshuahamasshiah:
Raving Rabbids:
I'll just go to Taco Bell and order whatever is on the 99 cent menu. All that "meat" is basically the same.

this would explain why you have to loose 100lbs ... That is how much I weigh.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that part.

Obviously reading comprehension is not her strong point. Especially because RR's ticker said she already lost 100 lbs (and she looks smoking hot).

But you all probably didn't need that example to tell you that she fails at reading comprehension. Look at the nutjob crap she comes up with!

*KatieH* · July 2010

mchell9 · July 2010

ToledoDeux:
Word. And how about this lovely follow-up to her quesadilla tantrum:
yeshuahamasshiah:
Raving Rabbids:
I'll just go to Taco Bell and order whatever is on the 99 cent menu. All that "meat" is basically the same.

this would explain why you have to loose 100lbs ... That is how much I weigh.
WOW! Who says that to someone?
This post is definitely OUT THERE!!! WTF?!

pretty_helmet · July 2010

so, you are willing to gamble with your child's health based on a couple of google searches you did for "big government wants to feed on mah bebeh's blood"?

congratulations, you win the Douche of the Year Award!

drewiekc · July 2010

OP, you get a big FAIL on comprehension of legal documents.

And that's all I have to say 'bout that.

fire0513fly · July 2010

OP ~ I think you are on to something...TRUST NO ONE.

[Deleted User] · July 2010

The user and all related content has been deleted.

fire0513fly · July 2010

yeshuahamasshiah · July 2010

I admitted to have been out of line for telling RR that and I apologized.

I too was called all kinds of names during that post and several other 'posts created in my honor', one of them being: 'racist' which I am not.

Mrs_Liberto · July 2010

yeshuahamasshiah:
femmeftle9:
yeshuahamasshiah:

There are several reasons why I would rather opt out:

1) The federal government lacks both the constitutional authority and the competence to develop a newborn screening program adequate for a nation as large and diverse as the Untied States. The bill which sets this screening into law (S. 1858) violates the Constitution, and may have untended consequences that will weaken the American health care system and further erode medical privacy. (i.e. you can read into what happened in Texas and how a DNA bank had been kept with blood samples of newborns without the parents consent or knowledge) .

Can you please build on this? I know you C&P'ed this, BUT HOW does the newborn screening violate the US Constitution? Inquiring minds want to know... (waves political science degree).

Kthnxbai!
S. 1858 violates Art.1, Section 9, Clause 7. "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law..." Congress did not make law requiring DNA samples of newborns. Public money is being given to the institutions which collect the samples, yet no legislation has been created or been voted on.
The paragraph you quoted from me came from here: https://www.aapsonline.org/legis/pauls1858.php

You're a farking idiot. That bill was passed into law on April 24th, 2008.

And I can't believe you're quoting a STATEMENT from Ron Paul (not an actual legal document or medical document) as some sort of legitimate source.

violetvirgo · July 2010

InternetExplorer:
So you hate fat people, the government, and chicken. That's like the holy trinity in my house.

One word....loca.

and speaking spanish b/c this is 'merica!

MLsBride06 · July 2010

Mrs_Liberto:
yeshuahamasshiah:
femmeftle9:
yeshuahamasshiah:

There are several reasons why I would rather opt out:
1) The federal government lacks both the constitutional authority and the competence to develop a newborn screening program adequate for a nation as large and diverse as the Untied States. The bill which sets this screening into law (S. 1858) violates the Constitution, and may have untended consequences that will weaken the American health care system and further erode medical privacy. (i.e. you can read into what happened in Texas and how a DNA bank had been kept with blood samples of newborns without the parents consent or knowledge) .
Can you please build on this? I know you C&P'ed this, BUT HOW does the newborn screening violate the US Constitution? Inquiring minds want to know... (waves political science degree).
Kthnxbai!
S. 1858 violates Art.1, Section 9, Clause 7. "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law..." Congress did not make law requiring DNA samples of newborns. Public money is being given to the institutions which collect the samples, yet no legislation has been created or been voted on.
The paragraph you quoted from me came from here: https://www.aapsonline.org/legis/pauls1858.php
You're a farking idiot. That bill was passed into law on April 24th, 2008.
And I can't believe you're quoting a STATEMENT from Ron Paul (not an actual legal document or medical document) as some sort of legitimate source.

She's a die hard Ron Paul follower and a member of Campaign for Liberty.

yeshuahamasshiah · July 2010

MLsBride06:
She's a die hard Ron Paul follower and a member of Campaign for Liberty.

wow, you googled my SN, how very impressive!!!

htomeo · July 2010

violetvirgo:
ToledoDeux:
I don't understand how people this paranoid get by on a day-to-day basis.

word. this is blowing my mind. i'm very informed on why they conduct the screening. it's hardly something significant enough for me to refuse it. for me, the benefit outweighs the "risk".
and i don't care if the government is keeping track - i'm not a conspiracy theorist.

But dontcha knowz..... The evil government will confiscate all blood samples taken, and mass produce clones used for war. And they will be produced in facilities that are paid for by un-witting tax payers. True story. I know I can believe that with 100% accuracy, because I haz seen it on the interwebz!

eowynmn · July 2010

Seriously, don't be an idiot.

even the most natural crunchy homebirthers I know are smart enough to know not to opt out...and I know a LOT of crunchy homebirthers. What you can do is ask the government to destroy your information after the test is done, but the test is super important.

And I live in an opt out state, it's just stupid to do that to your child because you are paranoid.

Mrs_Liberto · July 2010

yeshuahamasshiah:
MLsBride06:
She's a die hard Ron Paul follower and a member of Campaign for Liberty.
wow, you googled my SN, how very impressive!!!

It's more than you can do.

Ready2006 · July 2010

I'm having a hard time grasping how anyone can be such a consipracy theorist, yet a SAHM with a husband that works for the government. They're out to get us, but no worries--they can still feed the family, too!

CTL2005 · July 2010

PDXPhotoGrl:
First of all, newborn screening is run by the state, not the federal government, so constitutional authority has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with it. See here: https://genes-r-us.uthscsa.edu/resources/consumer/statemap.htm
The bill you cited provides for grants to fund screening program and an agency to make recommendations to the states as to which diseases to screen for, but does not require any state to do anything. Read your sources.
Second of all, they only screen for diseases that are greatly impacted by early intervention. Inborn errors of metabolism make up a large portion of those diseases, the effects of which can be devastating if not detected. Many of these can be helped immensely by special diets, which is why it is SO important to detect them BEFORE symptoms manifest, at which point neurological effects have already occurred.
False positives are always possible, but I personally find them to be a more than acceptable risk if it saves lives (or quality of life).
There's nothing wrong with questioning authority, but living in a constant state of fear and suspecting something just because government entities endorse it is ridiculous.

This. I also live in IL so I did the same screening you are talking about. Before becoming a mom I taught high school and had a student who had PKU (which the screening tests for). She was not tested at birth and ended up being severely mentally retarded because of it. At age 18 she had the mental capacity of about a 2 year old. She was still working on learning to use the bathroom and loved Barney etc. It was devastatingly sad because had she been tested and followed the strict diet necessary for PKU the mental retardation would have been preventable.

CTL2005 · July 2010

PDXPhotoGrl:
First of all, newborn screening is run by the state, not the federal government, so constitutional authority has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with it. See here: https://genes-r-us.uthscsa.edu/resources/consumer/statemap.htm
The bill you cited provides for grants to fund screening program and an agency to make recommendations to the states as to which diseases to screen for, but does not require any state to do anything. Read your sources.
Second of all, they only screen for diseases that are greatly impacted by early intervention. Inborn errors of metabolism make up a large portion of those diseases, the effects of which can be devastating if not detected. Many of these can be helped immensely by special diets, which is why it is SO important to detect them BEFORE symptoms manifest, at which point neurological effects have already occurred.
False positives are always possible, but I personally find them to be a more than acceptable risk if it saves lives (or quality of life).
There's nothing wrong with questioning authority, but living in a constant state of fear and suspecting something just because government entities endorse it is ridiculous.

This. I also live in IL so I did the same screening you are talking about. Before becoming a mom I taught high school and had a student who had PKU (which the screening tests for). She was not tested at birth and ended up being severely mentally retarded because of it. At age 18 she had the mental capacity of about a 2 year old. She was still working on learning to use the bathroom and loved Barney etc. It was devastatingly sad because had she been tested and followed the strict diet necessary for PKU the mental retardation would have been preventable.

yeshuahamasshiah · July 2010

Ready2006:
I'm having a hard time grasping how anyone can be such a consipracy theorist, yet a SAHM with a husband that works for the government. They're out to get us, but no worries--they can still feed the family, too!

Technically I am a WAHM (we have our own business). Google did not tell you that? Maybe you can ask the other pp who figured out how to google my SN.

violetvirgo · July 2010

yeshuahamasshiah:
MLsBride06:
She's a die hard Ron Paul follower and a member of Campaign for Liberty.
wow, you googled my SN, how very impressive!!!

no. what's impressive is you think that dimwit has a lick of sense. and quoting him in lieu of actual law regarding nb screening? bahaha.

you keep getting better.

htomeo · July 2010

violetvirgo:
InternetExplorer:
So you hate fat people, the government, and chicken. That's like the holy trinity in my house.

One word....loca.
and speaking spanish b/c this is 'merica!

:::dies:::

laurenpetro · July 2010

you don't happen to live near Ruby Ridge, do you?

mghnmouse · July 2010

As we are UC-ing, we plan to just go in for a basic well baby visit on day 4 or so. Not madatory in any sense for the birth certificate, plus at least in FL, you have up to 1 year to file for the birth certificate. We will NOT be doing any sort of additional screening, or testing.

Ready2006 · July 2010

yeshuahamasshiah:
Ready2006:
I'm having a hard time grasping how anyone can be such a consipracy theorist, yet a SAHM with a husband that works for the government. They're out to get us, but no worries--they can still feed the family, too!

Technically I am a WAHM (we have our own business). Google did not tell you that? Maybe you can ask the other pp who figured out how to google my SN.

I didn't google anything--your signature says you're a SAHM.

Maybe the government put it there.

violetvirgo · July 2010

Ready2006:
yeshuahamasshiah:
Ready2006:
I'm having a hard time grasping how anyone can be such a consipracy theorist, yet a SAHM with a husband that works for the government. They're out to get us, but no worries--they can still feed the family, too!

Technically I am a WAHM (we have our own business). Google did not tell you that? Maybe you can ask the other pp who figured out how to google my SN.

I didn't google anything--your signature says you're a SAHM.

yep. but just so people know where you're coming from you might want to put "i ron paul". ywia.

stinkytwopointzero · July 2010

A Pedi?

Isn't that, like, a pedicure?

yeshuahamasshiah · July 2010

laurenpetro:
you don't happen to live near Ruby Ridge, do you?

No, I do not.

However ::Mrs_Liberto:: suggested I "move to a bunker with the person who thinks it's annoying that the government wants to vaccinate us."

What happened to the Weavers (sp?) was extremely dramatic though.

I am curious why you would think I lived near there?

MamaMcBroom · July 2010

Oh the terrific irony that your husband works for the government, yet you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist....its almost too much.

"Down with government!!! Back to nature with us"...so what does your husband do for a living..."He works for,,er, ummm..."

WIN!

Mrs_Liberto · July 2010

yeshuahamasshiah:
laurenpetro:
you don't happen to live near Ruby Ridge, do you?
No, I do not.
However ::Mrs_Liberto:: suggested I "move to a bunker with the person who thinks it's annoying that the government wants to vaccinate us."
What happened to the Weavers (sp?) was extremely dramatic though.
I am curious why you would think I lived near there?

Aaand this just proves the stupids.

pixy_stix · July 2010

Too bad they can't screen for "the crazy."

laurenpetro · July 2010

yeshuahamasshiah:

laurenpetro:
you don't happen to live near Ruby Ridge, do you?

No, I do not.

However ::Mrs_Liberto:: suggested I "move to a bunker with the person who thinks it's annoying that the government wants to vaccinate us."

What happened to the Weavers (sp?) was extremely dramatic though.

I am curious why you would think I lived near there?

because you're crazy and you think the government is out to get you.

it's either that or you're just plain old BSC. DH's uncle thought like you too. he was institutionalized shortly after because he's a paranoid schizophrenic.

yeshuahamasshiah · July 2010

laurenpetro:
yeshuahamasshiah:

laurenpetro:
you don't happen to live near Ruby Ridge, do you?

No, I do not.

However ::Mrs_Liberto:: suggested I "move to a bunker with the person who thinks it's annoying that the government wants to vaccinate us."

What happened to the Weavers (sp?) was extremely dramatic though.

I am curious why you would think I lived near there?

because you're crazy and you think the government is out to get you.

it's either that or you're just plain old BSC. DH's uncle thought like you too. he was institutionalized shortly after because he's a paranoid schizophrenic.

how sad about YH's uncle!

You may want to stay away from my posts then, have you not heard? Schizophrenia is highly contagious!!

MegGary · July 2010

violetvirgo:

actually....i remember you. i can't believe i didn't remember. this crazy is just the cherry on top for you, my dear.

too bad they can't do a finger prick screening for racist nutter. i hope you got your chicken quesadilla.

https://community.thebump.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/37205393.aspx

The mexican place near where I work does not consider chicken meat.

EDT: my comment was for levity purposes.

[Deleted User] · July 2010

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Gramyson · July 2010

you're a fool.

PDXPhotoGrl · July 2010

Yeah, constitutional law isn't your strong point. Or any point.

fallbride_2004 · July 2010

If you want to act out your conspiracy theories when the consequences will be yours, go right ahead. Please don't subject an innocent baby to a possibility of a reduced quality of life because you are on a kick. How many horrible stories are out there from screening and what actually happened? Have them destroy the DNA if you feel better.

You do know that they could secretly sneak in and get the DNA at some point if they wanted to do so BSC thing don't you? (jk)You are going to have to let your child interact with the world unless you put a bubble around him/her. If you do make a bubble baby, what will that child do when you are gone since you will probably die first?

yeshuahamasshiah · July 2010

fallbride_2004:
If you want to act out your conspiracy theories when the consequences will be yours, go right ahead. Please don't subject an innocent baby to a possibility of a reduced quality of life because you are on a kick. How many horrible stories are out there from screening and what actually happened? Have them destroy the DNA if you feel better.

You do know that they could secretly sneak in and get the DNA at some point if they wanted to do so BSC thing don't you? (jk)You are going to have to let your child interact with the world unless you put a bubble around him/her. If you do make a bubble baby, what will that child do when you are gone since you will probably die first?

World interaction?? are you nuts? DH, DS and I live in a family bubble, also when one dies, we all do!

Not to mention that a "reduced quality of life" is what all schizophrenic whack jobs like myself aim for. Thanks for your concern though.

Want a personalized experience?

Did anyone opt out of a Newborn Screening?

Re: Did anyone opt out of a Newborn Screening?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards