ST. PAUL, Minn.—The start of 2014 marks a victory for the protection of private genetic data with the settlement of a lawsuit between 21 Minnesota families and the Minnesota Department of Health. The multi-year case argued the illegal and improper storage and use of newborn blood samples and genetic test results obtained under the Newborn Screening Program by the state health department. The ruling is in favor of the 21 plaintiffs, and now the blood samples and test results obtained without consent must be destroyed.
Various lawsuit documents in which the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) said they would destroy all or part of the Baby DNA bloodspot cards (specimens) and genetic test results. The MDH press release appears to say that they will destroy all data and DNA they collected before the Supreme Court decision.
The Complaint: "Plaintiffs the American Hospital Association, Missouri Baptist Sullivan Hospital, Munson Medical Center, Lancaster GEneral Hospital, and Trinity Health Corporation ("Plaintiffs") bring this action to end an unlawful government practice: The Medicare program has been refusing to pay hospitals for hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of care provided to patients, even though all agree tha tthe care provided was reasonable and medically necessary as the Medicare Act requires. The government's refusal to pay for this care is harming hospitals and patients. More pertinent here, it violates the Medicare Act and is otherwise unlawful. Plaintiffs seek a declaration to that effect as well as monetary and other relief." - AHA, et. al. vs Kathleen Sebelius, HHS, November 1, 2012.
The Court should declare that ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because severance, in the absence of a severability clause, wreaks havoc on the Constitution’s system of checks and balances and ignores the Separation of Powers doctrine. Such severance provides Congress with less than “ALL” legislative power, imposes a new “reconsideration” mechanism outside of the Presentment Clause, and is beyond the enumerated powers of Article III courts.
Kavanaugh, Circuit Judge: "This is not your typical lawsuit against the Government. Plaintiffs here have sued because they don’t want government benefits. They seek to disclaim their legal entitlement to Medicare Part A benefits for hospitalization costs. Plaintiffs want to disclaim their legal entitlement to Medicare Part A benefits because their private insurers limit coverage for patients who are entitled to Medicare Part A benefits. And plaintiffs would prefer to receive coverage from their private insurers rather than from the Government."
Citizens' Council for Health Freedom has filed an Amicus ("Friend of the Court") Brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the 26 states in the Florida lawsuit against Obamacare. The Brief specifically addresses the minimum coverage provision issue and the even more specifically provides reasons for why the Wickard vs Filburn decision (1942) should not be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in making a decision on the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Press Release