From the Associated Press
5/3/08
Congress passes anti-genetic discrimination bill

By JESSE J. HOLLAND – 14 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress sent President Bush a bill Thursday forbidding employers and insurance companies from using genetic tests showing people are at risk of developing cancer, heart disease or other ailments to reject their job applications, promotions or health care coverage, or in setting premiums.
Bush was expected soon to sign the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which lawmakers and advocates called "the first major civil rights act of the 21st century." Federal law already bans discrimination by race and gender.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...vmgDwD90D626G0

GATTACA

In a "not too distant" future, where genetic engineering of humans is common and DNA plays the primary role in determining social class, Vincent (Ethan Hawke) is conceived and born without the aid of this technology. Suffering from the nearly eradicated physical dysfunctions of myopia and a congenital heart defect, as well as being given a life expectancy of 30.2 years, Vincent faces extreme genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way he can achieve his life-long dream of becoming an astronaut is to break the law and impersonate a "valid".

and poor genetic code -is an invalid?

when they have discrimination down to a science...

quote from movie - non fiction now they may need it sooner than we realize.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...mp/~c1108x7ubk

The bill number is H.R. 493.

On the Net:
For bill text: http://thomas.loc.gov
Frequently asked questions about genetic testing: http://www.genome.gov/19516567


One Hundred Tenth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,

the third day of January, two thousand and eight

An Act

To prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008'.

(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Findings.

TITLE I--GENETIC NONDISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH INSURANCE

Sec. 101. Amendments to Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
______________

skip to -
please read this:


Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Deciphering the sequence of the human genome and other advances in genetics open major new opportunities for medical progress. New knowledge about the genetic basis of illness will allow for earlier detection of illnesses, often before symptoms have begun. Genetic testing can allow individuals to take steps to reduce the likelihood that they will contract a particular disorder. New knowledge about genetics may allow for the development of better therapies that are more effective against disease or have fewer side effects than current treatments. These advances give rise to the potential misuse of genetic information to discriminate in health insurance and employment.

(2) The early science of genetics became the basis of State laws that provided for the sterilization of persons having presumed genetic `defects' such as mental retardation, mental disease, epilepsy, blindness, and hearing loss, among other conditions. The first sterilization law was enacted in the State of Indiana in 1907. By 1981, a majority of States adopted sterilization laws to `correct' apparent genetic traits or tendencies. Many of these State laws have since been repealed, and many have been modified to include essential constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection. However, the current explosion in the science of genetics, and the history of sterilization laws by the States based on early genetic science, compels Congressional action in this area.

(3) Although genes are facially neutral markers, many genetic conditions and disorders are associated with particular racial and ethnic groups and gender. Because some genetic traits are most prevalent in particular groups, members of a particular group may be stigmatized or discriminated against as a result of that genetic information. This form of discrimination was evident in the 1970s, which saw the advent of programs to screen and identify carriers of sickle cell anemia, a disease which afflicts African-Americans. Once again, State legislatures began to enact discriminatory laws in the area, and in the early 1970s began mandating genetic screening of all African Americans for sickle cell anemia, leading to discrimination and unnecessary fear. To alleviate some of this stigma, Congress in 1972 passed the National Sickle Cell Anemia Control Act, which withholds Federal funding from States unless sickle cell testing is voluntary.

(4) Congress has been informed of examples of genetic discrimination in the workplace. These include the use of pre-employment genetic screening at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, which led to a court decision in favor of the employees in that case Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (135 F.3d 1260, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998)). Congress clearly has a compelling public interest in relieving the fear of discrimination and in prohibiting its actual practice in employment and health insurance.

(5) Federal law addressing genetic discrimination in health insurance and employment is incomplete in both the scope and depth of its protections. Moreover, while many States have enacted some type of genetic non-discrimination law, these laws vary widely with respect to their approach, application, and level of protection. Congress has collected substantial evidence that the American public and the medical community find the existing patchwork of State and Federal laws to be confusing and inadequate to protect them from discrimination. Therefore Federal legislation establishing a national and uniform basic standard is necessary to fully protect -

link - above

advance of Embryonics, Gene Therapy, and Nano Medicine, radical nanotech -based human enhancements such as bionic implants and "respirocyte" artificial red blood cells will be technologically viable in the near future.

The ability to build complex diamondoid medical nanorobots to molecular precision, and then to build them cheaply enough in sufficiently large numbers to be useful therapeutically, will revolutionize the practice of medicine and surgery. Someday nanorobots will be able to travel through the body searching out and curing diseases such as Myopa. The Vincents of the future will be on equal footing with genetic designed humans. Social class will be ooooh soooooo last century as individuals will look to enhance new technologies as we humans look to colonize purpose built cities betond the stars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr1IB9RVE_U

this is the preview of the future...

NAZI GERMANY WWII Ethnic cleansing it was called -the mass murderous
genocide of 6 million jews -gypsies - and those considered with
"retardation" or a fatal illness - is old age an illness? well we will see
I believe they are considering called old age a "disease."

must watch - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn9rAY4M7IM legislator's from Illinois are honoured -2 women...?

this is from www.answers.com under my lookup term "genetic discrimination"



Thank You - Dear Paula -

The potentially stigmatizing nature of genetic information and its history of abuse necessitate special provisions for its protection. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has established a basic right to privacy (in the case of Roe v. Wade), the nonspecific nature of this privacy protection fails to adequately guard against the unauthorized disclosure of personal genetic information.

There have been reports that genetic discrimination has been practiced by employers and insurers who are afraid of being required to cover the potentially high medical expenses of individuals who have a family history of a genetically inheritable disease, even if those individuals exhibit no symptoms of the actual disease. However, recent debate suggests that the actual occurrence of genetic discrimination has not yet been proven and that the perception of risk is exaggerated. Nevertheless, researchers working in human genetics should proceed under the assumption of potential harm and should therefore keep confidential all information that they collect or generate as part of any family study they conduct.

Antidiscrimination Legislation

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was the first law to prohibit employment discrimination by federally funded agencies and institutions based on physical disability. The 1992 reauthorization of this legislation defines an "individual with a disability" as any person who "is regarded as having impairment." Such a definition is broad enough to include an asymptomatic gene carrier who is perceived as being "sick" by an employer or insurer. For example, carriers of the trait for sickle cell disease may be "regarded" as having the disease, even if they show no symptoms of it. In some cases, such individuals have been denied health insurance because they were inappropriately viewed as having a preexisting condition, that is, as actually having the disease, rather than simply carrying the gene for it.

The 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) significantly broadened the scope of the 1973 legislation by prohibiting discrimination against disabled individuals in most areas of employment and with regard to access to public transportation. While the ADA's definition of disability excludes people with a "characteristic predisposition to illness or disease," some professionals believe that the legislation allots sufficient protection against genetic discrimination in the workplace.

Nonetheless, there is disagreement about whether people with a genetic predisposition to disease are adequately protected under the ADA. However, a recent ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has interpreted the ADA to include the protection of individuals from employer discrimination based on genetic test results. The debate has not yet been fully resolved. For instance, there is still the potential for employers to institute genetic screening programs prior to offering employment. Thus, the municipal, state, and federal judiciaries will be called on to define the extent of the ADA legislation in their respective precincts in future cases.

Although the ADA prohibits employer discrimination, this law, along with the majority of state laws, does not adequately protect those with genetic disorders, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic, against discrimination by insurers. Thus, even though employers are prohibited from discriminating against workers with genetic disorders, the employment opportunities for such persons may still be limited. This is because employers could refuse to hire such individuals on the grounds that their insurance premiums would be too high.

Several states have attempted to address this problem by passing laws protecting individuals from genetic discrimination by health insurers. However, these laws generally fail to offer comprehensive protection to all people at risk for genetic discrimination. Depending on the way an individual law is worded, healthy gene carriers; people who are predisposed to certain genetic disorders such as cancer; and people who are at a high risk of developing a genetic disorder due to family medical history, rather than because of a detected gene mutation may all be excluded from the protection the law is intended to provide. For instance, Section 514 of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) exempts self-insured health benefit plans from state insurance laws, so the employees of companies that participate in such plans have no protection. Many employers, especially small businesses, are self-insured, and rely upon commercial insurance companies to administer their health plans. These employer-funded self-insurance plans qualify for the ERISA exemption, and therefore do not have to comply with state mandates for services or state laws regarding genetic discrimination, involuntary testing, or privacy.

Present Problems and Potential Solutions

There is one federal act related to genetic discrimination that overrides ERISA and therefore applies to all health plans, even those offered by small businesses. This federal act is called the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). HIPAA specifies that if employees are covered by a group health insurance policy offered through their employer, they must be offered a similar policy when they change jobs. The new insurance company does not have to offer this coverage at the same rate as was offered by the old plan, but it cannot deny coverage by declaring the genetic disorder to be a "preexisting condition." In contrast, if a person is either unemployed or self-employed, there is no requirement that an insurer offer him or her a policy.

As information about genetic disorders rapidly expands, the potential harm from genetic discrimination also becomes magnified. As a result, there is increasing recognition of the need for federal legislation guaranteeing a right to genetic privacy. Working groups have been formed to evaluate the impact of genetic information on individual insurability and on the insurance industry. Among these groups are the American Society of Human Genetics' Ad Hoc Committee on Genetic Testing/Insurance Issues, and the Working Group on Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of the Human Genome Project, which is jointly sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Education. At the end of the twentieth century, congressional committees held hearings on these issues, and in February 2001 a bill was introduced that mandates genetic nondiscrimination in health insurance.

Bibliography

Internet Resource
"The Potential for Discrimination in Health Insurance Based on Prescriptive Genetic Tests." U.S. Congress. http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/...22/hearing.htm.

Environmental Exposures and Gene Regulation in Disease Etiology

Thea M. Edwards1,2 and John Peterson Myers2
1 Department of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
2 Environmental Health Sciences, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Address correspondence to T. Edwards, 521A Bartram Hall, PO Box 118525, Department of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA.

The authors declare they have no competing financial interests.
Received December 2, 2006; Accepted May 21, 2007.
Objective. Health or disease is shaped for all individuals by interactions between their genes and environment. Exactly how the environment changes gene expression and how this can lead to disease are being explored in a fruitful new approach to environmental health research, representative studies of which are reviewed here.

Data sources. We searched Web of Science and references of relevant publications to understand the diversity of gene regulatory mechanisms affected by environmental exposures with disease implications.

Data synthesis. Pharmaceuticals, pesticides, air pollutants, industrial chemicals, heavy metals, hormones, nutrition, and behavior can change gene expression through a broad array of gene regulatory mechanisms. Mechanisms include regulation of gene translocation, histone modifications, DNA methylation, DNA repair, transcription, RNA stability, alternative RNA splicing, protein degradation, gene copy number, and transposon activation. Furthermore, chemically induced changes in gene regulation are associated with serious and complex human diseases, including cancer, diabetes and obesity, infertility, respiratory diseases, allergies, and neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson and Alzheimer diseases. One of the best-studied areas of gene regulation is epigenetics, especially DNA methylation. Our examples of environmentally induced changes in DNA methylation are presented in the context of early development, when methylation patterns are initially laid down. This approach highlights the potential role for altered DNA methylation in fetal origins of adult disease and inheritance of acquired genetic change.

Conclusions. The reviewed studies indicate that genetic predisposition for disease is best predicted in the context of environmental exposures. Second, the genetic mechanisms investigated in these studies offer new avenues for risk assessment research. Finally, we are likely to witness dramatic improvements in human health, and reductions in medical costs, if environmental pollution is decreased.

Keywords: chemicals, disease risk, DNA methylation, drug resistance, endocrine disruption, environment, fetal origins of adult disease, gene expression, gene regulation, susceptibility