5 ms·

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

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).

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
krapp 10y ago
>How could they even consider this bill? This is the sort of thing the Republicans plan on replacing the ACA with.
ghostDancer 10y ago
Land of the free. It's the free market and all that bullshit that USA like to get proud of. Now people is going to be a nice resource and a cheap and easily replaceable one too.
deathhand 10y ago
To be devil's advocate... Why not just make the data free and open to all? It is for the benefit for humanity. You and I are in this world together and we should help each other as much as possible.
- fragsworth 10y ago
  And then some researcher finds a (probably not causative) correlation between a certain set of genes and pedophilia. Say you're a politician, and one of your opponents discovers you have the genes. Good luck dealing with that shit
  - thotpoizn 10y ago
    Just for argument's sake... Do you think the greater good would be served by protecting that politician's privacy, and that of several dozen school teachers who also carried that set of genes? Or would society be better off if the politician and the teachers were subjected to greater scrutiny, leading to some percentage of them being removed when discovered to be actual pedophiles? 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.
    - mcguire 10y ago
      Or we could just castrate them and not have to worry about it anymore.
    - canadian_voter 10y ago
      “Whatever the chain of events is, the chain begins before birth,” said James M. Cantor, a University of Toronto professor of psychiatry whose research team has made a series of startling correlations finding that pedophiles are likely to share physical attributes, such as slightly lower IQs, shorter body height, left-handedness and less brain tissue.[1] 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-science-says-yes-sexologists-say-not-so-fast 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. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
      - thotpoizn 10y ago
        The hypothetical "pedo gene" is probably too emotionally charged; some may find it difficult to engage rationally as a result. 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.
    - klenwell 10y ago
      The other point here you're missing is that these genetic test won't accurately predict acts of pedophilia. But they will be misconstrued and misrepresented as if they do. How would you like to be identified with a gene that's associated with a 10% more likely incidence of pedophilia? What would that even mean?
- canadian_voter 10y ago
  You and I are in this world together and we should help each other as much as possible. 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] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_audition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_audition
- noir_lord 10y ago
  Because it slams straight into body autonomy, what is more personal than the building blocks that make you who you are (to a large extent). 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
- cylinder 10y ago
  When did I agree to be in this world with everyone else? I am free to go off and live my own private life without being part of this "global community" if I choose.
  - dsr_ 10y ago
    That's actually very difficult, possibly impossible. Virtually every square inch of land has been claimed by someone else. Much of the ocean is open to you, but it's very difficult to bootstrap without substantial resources from land-based civilizations.
    - thotpoizn 10y ago
      I dunno, there are still places in the US where you can buy decent land, outside of any city limits, for under $1,000 an acre. And there are absolutely scads of places you can buy NICE parcels (including tree lines, water, etc.) for around $2K / acre or less. 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.
pharrington 10y ago
According to the article (I haven't checked congress.gov yet), said bill hasn't even passed committee yet. As foul as the proposal is, this isn't indicative of a regression or collapse of the legislative process.
- 24gttghh 10y ago
  This [0] WP article says it passed the House Education and the Workforce committee, but the official bill tracking page [1] hasn't been updated yet, and is still being considered by two other committees. 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/2017/03/11/employees-who-decline-genetic-testing-could-face-penalities-under-proposed-bill/?utm_term=.0d8505df0670 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/0... [1]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313/committees https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313... [2]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313...
bobcostas55 10y ago
What's the downside? If the info was irrelevant then I'd understand it, but obviously genes are relevant to risk. Just as there's nothing wrong with e.g. age-based discrimination, I don't see the problem here.
- pstuart 10y ago
  No downsides. Please post your complete medical history, financial transactions, porn history here so we can evaluate your fitness for your next job.
  - bobcostas55 10y ago
    Employers already check credit reports, so they know about problems with your financial history. I don't see how porn is relevant.
    - pstuart 10y ago
      We need to know too. Just to make sure you're safe around children. Of course you have nothing to hide, so this shouldn't be a big deal.
  - canadian_voter 10y ago
    Also, all of your activities both at work and at home will be monitored for compliance with our "Helping Our Employees be Safer and Healthier" policy. No smoking, no drinking, no refined sugar, no red meat, no extra-marital or unprotected sex or your coverage may be denied. Don't forget to do your morning calisthenics: we will be watching. Welcome to the firm.
  - mattnewton 10y ago
    Don't worry, the public is perfectly competent to draw relevant conclusions from that information too.
    - pstuart 10y ago
      Hmmmm... perhaps maybe some privacy might be called for then?
jmclnx 10y ago
Well I guess if you cannot legally discriminate on a person's looks, they can use this method. Someone said Gattaca, but I think more like syfi's Incorporated Rich will have designer genes and protected estates, poor will be locked out of any kind social advancement.

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).

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

krapp 10y ago

>How could they even consider this bill? This is the sort of thing the Republicans plan on replacing the ACA with.

ghostDancer 10y ago

Land of the free. It's the free market and all that bullshit that USA like to get proud of. Now people is going to be a nice resource and a cheap and easily replaceable one too.

deathhand 10y ago

To be devil's advocate... Why not just make the data free and open to all? It is for the benefit for humanity. You and I are in this world together and we should help each other as much as possible.

fragsworth 10y ago
And then some researcher finds a (probably not causative) correlation between a certain set of genes and pedophilia. Say you're a politician, and one of your opponents discovers you have the genes. Good luck dealing with that shit
- thotpoizn 10y ago
  Just for argument's sake... Do you think the greater good would be served by protecting that politician's privacy, and that of several dozen school teachers who also carried that set of genes? Or would society be better off if the politician and the teachers were subjected to greater scrutiny, leading to some percentage of them being removed when discovered to be actual pedophiles? 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.
  - mcguire 10y ago
    Or we could just castrate them and not have to worry about it anymore.
  - canadian_voter 10y ago
    “Whatever the chain of events is, the chain begins before birth,” said James M. Cantor, a University of Toronto professor of psychiatry whose research team has made a series of startling correlations finding that pedophiles are likely to share physical attributes, such as slightly lower IQs, shorter body height, left-handedness and less brain tissue.[1] 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-science-says-yes-sexologists-say-not-so-fast 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. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
    - thotpoizn 10y ago
      The hypothetical "pedo gene" is probably too emotionally charged; some may find it difficult to engage rationally as a result. 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.
  - klenwell 10y ago
    The other point here you're missing is that these genetic test won't accurately predict acts of pedophilia. But they will be misconstrued and misrepresented as if they do. How would you like to be identified with a gene that's associated with a 10% more likely incidence of pedophilia? What would that even mean?
canadian_voter 10y ago
You and I are in this world together and we should help each other as much as possible. 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] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_audition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_audition
noir_lord 10y ago
Because it slams straight into body autonomy, what is more personal than the building blocks that make you who you are (to a large extent). 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
cylinder 10y ago
When did I agree to be in this world with everyone else? I am free to go off and live my own private life without being part of this "global community" if I choose.
- dsr_ 10y ago
  That's actually very difficult, possibly impossible. Virtually every square inch of land has been claimed by someone else. Much of the ocean is open to you, but it's very difficult to bootstrap without substantial resources from land-based civilizations.
  - thotpoizn 10y ago
    I dunno, there are still places in the US where you can buy decent land, outside of any city limits, for under $1,000 an acre. And there are absolutely scads of places you can buy NICE parcels (including tree lines, water, etc.) for around $2K / acre or less. 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.

pharrington 10y ago

According to the article (I haven't checked congress.gov yet), said bill hasn't even passed committee yet. As foul as the proposal is, this isn't indicative of a regression or collapse of the legislative process.

24gttghh 10y ago
This [0] WP article says it passed the House Education and the Workforce committee, but the official bill tracking page [1] hasn't been updated yet, and is still being considered by two other committees. 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/2017/03/11/employees-who-decline-genetic-testing-could-face-penalities-under-proposed-bill/?utm_term=.0d8505df0670 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/0... [1]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313/committees https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313... [2]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313...

bobcostas55 10y ago

What's the downside? If the info was irrelevant then I'd understand it, but obviously genes are relevant to risk. Just as there's nothing wrong with e.g. age-based discrimination, I don't see the problem here.

pstuart 10y ago
No downsides. Please post your complete medical history, financial transactions, porn history here so we can evaluate your fitness for your next job.
- bobcostas55 10y ago
  Employers already check credit reports, so they know about problems with your financial history. I don't see how porn is relevant.
  - pstuart 10y ago
    We need to know too. Just to make sure you're safe around children. Of course you have nothing to hide, so this shouldn't be a big deal.
- canadian_voter 10y ago
  Also, all of your activities both at work and at home will be monitored for compliance with our "Helping Our Employees be Safer and Healthier" policy. No smoking, no drinking, no refined sugar, no red meat, no extra-marital or unprotected sex or your coverage may be denied. Don't forget to do your morning calisthenics: we will be watching. Welcome to the firm.
- mattnewton 10y ago
  Don't worry, the public is perfectly competent to draw relevant conclusions from that information too.
  - pstuart 10y ago
    Hmmmm... perhaps maybe some privacy might be called for then?

jmclnx 10y ago

Well I guess if you cannot legally discriminate on a person's looks, they can use this method. Someone said Gattaca, but I think more like syfi's Incorporated Rich will have designer genes and protected estates, poor will be locked out of any kind social advancement.