MN Senate Shoots Down Consent Requirements for Genetic Research on Citizens; Votes to Approve Illegal State Actions

The Senate and House Bills (SF3138/HF3438) will give DNA ownership and genetic research rights to the State of Minnesota. State government will own the genetic information and profiles of all citizens, dating back to citizens born after July 1, 1997.

What happened:

• Today, the Minnesota Senate took

CITIZEN PETITION to Governor Tim Pawlenty

 

CCHC HEALTH eNEWS
by Twila Brase, President

• Special Session - Don't Do It!
• Cute SCHIP Commercial Exploits Children
• Bad Medicine
• Privacy Rights - Unwanted Guest at E-Health Table
• Be a Citizen Voice

Special Session -  Don't Do It!
Minnesota Governor Pawlenty appears ready to call a special session. 
He should be encouraged not to do so. Here's the problem. While he is 
the only one empowered to call a special session, he can do nothing 
about it once it begins. Despite all comments to the contrary, he 
cannot control the agenda, limit the legislation offered, or shut it 
down. He can only veto or sign bills. Legislation completely 
unrelated to the bridge collapse or the flooding could be introduced 
or amended onto the bills used to fund repair of the bridge and 
restoration of Southeastern Minnesota. If you want to keep your life, 
liberty, money, and property safe for the next 6 months (legislature 
reconvenes Feb 12, 2008), contact the governor at: 651-296-3391, 
1-800-657-3717, tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us

Here are the amnesty votes today -- And the REAL REASON it lost   DEAR FRIENDS,

Please do all you can in Letters to the Editor, on talk radio, in conversations with your friends to make sure that all know this amnesty bill failed for only one reason: Senators thought it wasn't tough enough on enforcement or illegal aliens.

Some news media are suggesting this bill died because it was attacked from both open borders and closed borders factions.

Not true. The Senators who are soft on illegal immigration stuck with the bill even though they decried it for being too restrictive.

Of the 53 votes against the bill, we can find only four votes that we think we wouldn't have gotten without the AFL-CIO's opposition. The AFL-CIO opposed the guestworker expansion, as did we.

But we don't find any NO votes that were because the bill was too restrictive.

The winning argument in the Senate was that this bill provided incredible rewards for those who break immigration laws without guaranteeing any significant reductions in future illegal immigration