Why did Ron Paul vote against the Genetic Discrimination Bill?

[Expatriate]

Please excuse my lack of knowledge, but I would like to know Ron Paul's reason for voting against recent legislation which "bans employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of genetic makeup" Is this unconstitutional?

Certain odious parties are using the fact that he voted against the bill to make Dr. Paul look bad(see the second quote from Redstate.com), as there is no immediately obvious reason why he did so, and he was the only member of Congress to vote against it.

I have seen many examples of legislation in the past where Dr. Paul was the sole dissenter because of unconstitutional properties which were not visible to someone simply reading a description of the bill. I would just like to know more about this "genetic discrimination" bill. Is it constitutional? And was anything "packaged" along with the bill?

Does anyone know more about this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103426.html

Congress Passes Ban on Using Genetic Data Against Workers

Companies would no longer be able to use genetic information like a person's predisposition for breast cancer, sickle cell disease or diabetes to make insurance or job decisions under a bill passed by Congress yesterday. President Bush is expected to sign it into law.

The House voted 414 to 1 for the legislation a week after it passed the Senate 95 to 0.

The bill would bar health insurance companies from using genetic information to set premiums or determine enrollment eligibility. Similarly, employers could not use genetic information in hiring, firing or promotion decisions. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) was the only member of Congress to vote against the bill.

From Redstate.com (no link 'cause I don't want you to give them traffic)

Ron Paul: Faux Libertarian
By streiff

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. ...more

The bill passed the House 414-1. The one vote? The guy who was offended by the notion that the Federal government was wiretapping terrorists.

At some point his supporters, at least those not on Thorazine, should start considering the idea that this little nut bar has played them for chumps.
It Amazes That He Is Paid To Write

 

[Danke]

There has already been many threads started about this. Search and ye shall find.

 

[Expatriate]

There has already been many threads started about this. Search and ye shall find.

How odd. I did search several hours ago for multiple variations of "genetic discrimination" and kept getting no matches. Now when I search I get 19 matches.

Oh well. Sorry about wasting forum space:o

 

[brandon]

Where is the constitution does it give the federal government the authority to regulate the hiring practices of companies and private individuals?

This issue is just another free market vs corporatism deal. Ron Paul thinks the free market can handle these issues better then the government. The government thinks they need to protect everyone through legislation.

And it is unconstitutional

 

[angelatc]

Where is the constitution does it give the federal government the authority to regulate the hiring practices of companies and private individuals?

Not to mention federal authority over insurance company practices.

 

[Expatriate]

Where is the constitution does it give the federal government the authority to regulate the hiring practices of companies and private individuals?

This issue is just another free market vs corporatism deal. Ron Paul thinks the free market can handle these issues better then the government. The government thinks they need to protect everyone through legislation.

And it is unconstitutional

The sad thing is that only one of our Congressmen actually upholds the Constitution. What is wrong with all those other blokes? Do they just vote for a bill because it "sounds good"?

 

[SeanEdwards]

I'm guessing the main reason is probably that he didn't think it was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.

Let's see...

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

I dont see anything there that authorizes the Federal government to pass laws regarding discrimination, whether by genes or any other method. And then of course there is:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I suspect that Dr. P thinks it's a matter for state governments, or would require a constitutional amendment to make it a Federal matter.

 

[Expatriate]

Thanks for the information. I could probably use a little more education in these areas.

As always, the only reason Ron Paul looks strange being the only one to vote against something is because EVERY ONE of his fellow representatives are failing to do their duty and uphold the Constitution.

Don't they still have an Oath of Office that says they have to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic"?

It irks me to no end that the thing the media focuses on is "OMG Ron Paul voted against this WONDERFUL bill" rather than the fact that ALL of the other members of Congress just failed to uphold their oath of office!

 

[DriftWood]

Please excuse my lack of knowledge, but I would like to know Ron Paul's reason for voting against recent legislation which "bans employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of genetic makeup" Is this unconstitutional?

Certain odious parties are using the fact that he voted against the bill to make Dr. Paul look bad(see the second quote from Redstate.com), as there is no immediately obvious reason why he did so, and he was the only member of Congress to vote against it.

I have seen many examples of legislation in the past where Dr. Paul was the sole dissenter because of unconstitutional properties which were not visible to someone simply reading a description of the bill. I would just like to know more about this "genetic discrimination" bill. Is it constitutional? And was anything "packaged" along with the bill?

Does anyone know more about this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103426.html



From Redstate.com (no link 'cause I don't want you to give them traffic)

Like any libertarian he is for a completely free market. That means no govt regulations on any contracts between businesses and individuals, employees and employers. An employer has the right to fire or not hire anyone for whatever reason. Be it because of skin color, sex, sexuality, pregnancy or sickness. However misguided or immoral reason it might be. To fire someone is to stop paying someone for their services. Just as a consumer has a right to stop buying a product, a employer has the right to stop buying labour. The same goes for an employer, he has the right to quit or not take a job for whatever reason. Quitting is just stopping to sell your services. You should not have to explain yourself or give reasons. Employment is not a right, it is a voluntary contract between to equal parties. No one should be forced by the govt to give employment to someone else against ones own will. Just as the govt should not force anyone to work for anyone else against their will.

You might think this sounds horrible.. and that employees would suffer. Not so, the one that really suffers thru discrimination is the employer. Discrimination means that hes employees are not there because of merit or performance on the job but because of some superficial characteristic that has nothing to do with the job. Such a business will eventually fail, it will be inefficient and its profits will low. Discrimination is business suicide. In the end employers will hire the people that do the job best regardless of who they are.

That said, firing or lowering the wages of a pregnant woman or sick person is not discrimination if these factors actually effect productivity. People get payed for productivity, thats all that matters and all that should matter. Basing wages and employment on anything else IS discrimination. That would mean that there is someone more qualified on the outside (unemployed or with a lower wage) that would do a better job but is denied the job regardless. How is that fair? These discrimination regulations are just for raising monopoly barriers to keep the people on the inside on the inside and the people on the outside on the outside. The only fair thing is open competition without artificial barriers.

Cheers

 

[AutoDas]

Exactly^

The business is who suffers from not hiring skilled labor because of his (or her) race or beliefs. Discrimination is an issue judged only by morals (not like theft) so if you think it's wrong for a business to practice such things, then you have a moral duty to boycott the business. It is my belief that any government that tries to protect morals ends up losing them because they all have unintentional consequences. Just because you vote against banning "discrimination" it doesn't mean you believe in it, let the free market judge what is best for society.

 

[Truth Warrior]

I Favor Discrimination
by Michael S. Rozeff

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff205.html

 

[revolutionman]

What if a persons genetic makeup is responsible for making them a violent freak of nature. Thats something that an employer should be able to pass on.

problem with the Government is that they pitch something like this with all the positive points in the bill, but they never talk about the fine print that almost always fucks the middle class.

 

[SeanEdwards]

What if a persons genetic makeup is responsible for making them a violent freak of nature.

Exactly. That was basically Hitler's point about Jewish blood. Wipe those violent freaks of nature out before they get a chance to do violent freakish acts.

 

[unconsious767]

Hr493?

Is HR493 the right bill? If so here's RP's response:

On April 25, 2007, opposing [pdf] the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007, H.R. 493, Paul said, in part:

Madam Speaker, the supporters of H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, are right to be concerned over the possibility that third parties, such as the government or potential employers, will access an individual’s genetic information without consent, and use that information to deny an individual health insurance or other benefits. I have long advocated repealing government laws and polices that allow third parties to access personal information. For example, I have worked to repeal the provision of Federal law giving the Federal Government the power to assign every American a “unique medical health identifier.” I also support repealing the phony “medical privacy” regulations that give law enforcement officials and state-favored private interests the right to access medical records at will.

Because of the Federal Government’s poor record in protecting privacy , I do not believe the best way to address concerns about the misuse of genetic information is through intrusive Federal legislation. Uniform Federal mandates are a clumsy and ineffective way to deal with problems such as employers making hiring decisions on the basis of a potential employee’s genetic profile. Imposing Federal mandates on private businesses merely raises the costs of doing business and thus reduces the employment opportunities for all citizens. A much better way to eliminate irrational discrimination is to rely on state and local regulation. Unlike the Federal Government, states and localities are able to tailor their regulations to fit the needs of their particular populaces. I would remind my colleagues that 34 states currently ban genetic discrimination in employment, while 46 states forbid health insurers from engaging in genetic discrimination. Clearly, the states are capable of addressing this issue without interference from Washington. My colleagues should also remember that Congress has no constitutional authority to forbid private sector employers from making hiring or other employment decisions on the basis of genetic information.

The best way to address the sponsors of H.R. 493’s legitimate concerns is to put individuals back in control of the health care dollar. When individuals control the health care dollar they, not their employers, insurance companies or Health Maintenance Organizations, can make all health care decisions, including whether or not to share individual genetic histories with a potential employer, insurer, or other third party. Therefore, instead of creating more Federal regulations and bureaucracies, my colleagues should increase individual control of health care by passing legislation expanding Health Savings Accounts and individual health care tax credits and deductions.

http://www.pogowasright.org/blogs/dissent/?p=874

 

[camped69]

Your DNA is YOUR property. Enough said.

 

[DriftWood]

Is HR493 the right bill? If so here's RP's response:





http://www.pogowasright.org/blogs/dissent/?p=874

As i understand it RP is against the government having any database of information on people, but not against private companies collecting and selling information to other private companies. Companies are accuntable to their customers in a much higher degree than govt is accountable to their voters. Every time you buy something you are voting with your wallet, thats how private companies are kept in check.

Cheers

 

[TrueFreedom]

I'm guessing the main reason is probably that he didn't think it was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.

Let's see...



I dont see anything there that authorizes the Federal government to pass laws regarding discrimination, whether by genes or any other method. And then of course there is:



I suspect that Dr. P thinks it's a matter for state governments, or would require a constitutional amendment to make it a Federal matter.

Nope bad reading of the Constitution. Go look at the 14th amendment and the Supreme Court rulings that give Congress the power to prevent discrimination.

 

[wowdavidp1]

http://mises.org/story/2808

Great rebuttal to the genetic discrimination bill