If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A constitutional battle in New Jersey over the state’s newborn screening program has intensified, as parents now cite the government’s own words to argue that officials pierce newborns’ skin to “seize their blood, analyze the information contained within it, and keep that blood and information for potential later use and sharing with third parties, all without parents’ consent or a warrant.” The amended class action complaint, filed October 6 in federal court, challenges what it calls “nonconsensual and warrantless blood collection, screening, and retention practices,” claiming that state officials continue to “puncture the skin of every child born in New Jersey to seize blood for testing without parental consent” despite recent policy revisions. We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here. According to the filing, the issue is not the screening itself, which checks newborns for dozens of serious genetic and metabolic conditions, but what happens afterward. “Despite getting test results within two weeks, New Jersey kept the remaining portion of each baby’s blood for 23 years—or at least it did until Plaintiffs sued,” the complaint says. “Before Plaintiffs sued, New Jersey did not ask parents if the state could seize or analyze their newborn’s blood, nor did New Jersey inform parents that it would keep any remaining blood after initial testing.” The plaintiffs, represented by the Institute for Justice, say their demands are straightforward: “Just ask parents for consent.” They even proposed a template consent form to the Department of Health, but say the agency refused to implement it. “Defendants cannot sidestep the Constitution just because they think some parents will make, as Defendants see it, the ‘wrong’ choice,” the complaint states. One mother, Rev. Hannah Lovaglio, said she was “appalled” to discover the practice, noting that “New Jersey punctured the skin of both of [her] boys and physically manipulated their heels to collect their blood” without ever asking permission. The lawsuit adds that she “worries that New Jersey is abusing its nonconsensual, continued possession of her children’s remaining blood.” Another parent, Erica Jedynak, described the state’s storage system as “a creepy database,” calling the collection of baby blood “immoral.” The complaint alleges that “New Jersey does not just keep children’s remaining blood for itself,” but has “been caught giving that blood to third parties,” including law enforcement. Citing public records, it notes that state police obtained samples on at least five occasions “without a warrant,” and that officials have “given or sold blood from its baby blood stockpile to other third parties, including, but not limited to, researchers, companies, and other government agencies.” While the state in 2024 shortened the storage period to two years for healthy infants and ten years for those with positive test results, parents say this “voluntary and non-binding” policy change is missing the one thing that matters: consent.” The filing adds, “Nothing prevents Defendants, or the Attorney General, from rescinding, amending, or changing their policy changes tomorrow.” The parents argue that both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments are being violated. The Fourth, they write, protects the “right to be secure in their persons,” which includes “the right to be free from intrusion into, and removal of material from, the human body.” The complaint continues, “People’s property and privacy interests in their blood and associated genetic material do not dissipate when that blood is taken physically from inside their bodies by state action.” The Fourteenth Amendment claim centers on parental autonomy. “Parents, on behalf of their children—not New Jersey—control whether and how the state may intrude into their children’s bodies for medical testing,” the document states. “A simple and less-restrictive alternative exists: Simply obtain voluntary consent from parents to keep their baby’s remaining blood for specific disclosed purposes prior to its storage, use, and potential sharing with third parties.” If granted class-action status, the suit could cover more than 100,000 families each year. The plaintiffs seek a court order requiring the state to “either obtain parental consent to retain their children’s blood for purposes other than testing, or return or destroy the blood spots and all associated data.” The case is a test of how governments handle genetic information in the age of AI and predictive DNA analysis. The families’ attorneys argue that, as “artificial intelligence has begun transforming the interpretation of genetic data,” there is “a particularly heightened need to maintain privacy and control over blood and the genetic information contained within.” The outcome could reverberate far beyond New Jersey, reshaping how states manage newborn blood repositories that now contain samples from hundreds of millions of Americans. The New Jersey blood spot case exposes a growing privacy crisis rooted in genetic data and AI. Every drop of blood collected from a newborn carries the entire code of that person’s identity, a permanent signature that cannot be altered or replaced. If those samples or their digital genetic profiles were ever leaked, copied, or shared without consent, the damage would be irreversible. DNA cannot be revoked or reset. Once it escapes state custody, control over it is gone forever. In the age of artificial intelligence, the risk compounds. Modern AI systems can take raw genetic data and predict traits ranging from disease risk to ancestry and physical appearance. They can draw links between relatives, reconstruct family trees, and even identify individuals from what was once thought to be anonymous genetic material. A database of newborn DNA, if accessed by the wrong entity or merged with commercial or law enforcement records, could enable surveillance on a scale never before possible. It would turn what began as a health initiative into a lifelong system of biological tracking. The concern is not only that data could be stolen or misused but that it could be quietly repurposed. A genetic profile kept for testing today could be mined tomorrow for research, insurance assessments, or law enforcement searches. The New Jersey lawsuit warns that “people’s property and privacy interests in their blood and associated genetic material do not dissipate when that blood is taken physically from inside their bodies by state action.” That principle matters now more than ever, because once a government or third party gains access to DNA, the line between health protection and population monitoring begins to blur. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post The Constitutional Fight Over New Jersey’s Baby DNA Stockpile appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Klobuchar Accidentally Makes the Case that Obamacare Subsidies Are Absurd

David vs Goliath: Starbuck Sues Google for $15M Over AI Defamation

Celebrating the settlement, Cards Against Humanity announced a special pack of Elon Musk-themed cards.

And there’s not much Moon to spoil the spectacle!

Spiders can fly without a breeze, but something else is vital.

Heading to Silver Springs? Keep one eye on the sky.

The Supreme Court seems set to use a case regarding a map laying out U.S. House of Representatives districts in Louisiana to overturn Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which would end the practice of racial gerrymandering -- majority-black districts carved out in a way that all but guarantees Democratic representation. Section 2 of the VRA forbid voting qualifications that denied the right of black citizens to vote, but has burgeoned into the assumption that black Democrats have a right to see their preferred candidate win House seats, giving one political party a huge built-in advantage in the race for political control. The argument isn’t about voting rights, but about how Section 2 has been abused to preserve partisan advantage for Democrats in the House of Representatives, especially with the 2026 mid-term congressional elections approaching. Monday’s PBS News Hour segment on the controversy came with the irresponsible online headline “How GOP-led redistricting efforts may disenfranchise Black voters.” That history-laden word “disenfranchise,” redolent of poll taxes and Jim Crow, didn’t come up during the actual segment, suggesting a headline writer with his left thumb on the scale. The only guest for the segment was from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which did not suggest an attempt at ideological balance. Co-anchor Geoff Bennett: Republican lawmakers in North Carolina moved forward with a proposal today to redraw their state's congressional map in a way that would eliminate its only swing district. The mid-decade redistricting is part of a nationwide push by President Trump and his Republican allies to help the GOP maintain control of Congress in next year's elections, often through maps that have the effect of diluting Black political power and diminishing the voting strength of communities of color. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared willing to issue a ruling that could further that effort during arguments in a Louisiana redistricting case. Bennett hosted NAACP Legal Defense Fund president Janai Nelson, who argued the case before the Supreme Court “in defense of Louisiana voters” and the state’s current two majority-Black districts.  Nelson: So, Section 2 is part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It's a permanent provision of that act. And it basically says that there's no voting practice, procedure, qualification, anything having to do with voting that can abridge the right to vote, so deny it or dilute it or harm it in any way, minimize it, on account of race. But there is a difference between a right to the franchise and a right for your preferred (Democratic) candidate to triumph, which is how racial gerrymandering under Section 2 has worked. Bennett asked about plans by Republicans in North Carolina “to effectively oust one of the state's three Black members of Congress by carving up an area of Eastern North Carolina in this congressional map.” [As always, PBS capitalizes “Black” but not “white” in transcripts.] Rep. Don Davis won the First District election in 2024 with 52.4 percent of the vote. Only 39 percent of the population in that district is black. Nelson argued: "I can't imagine how this map in North Carolina can achieve its partisan goals lawfully in the way that they're trying to do it now without violating the rights of Black voters." Bennett offered only a mild riposte. "And is that what you would say to people who say, look, the Voting Rights Act has outlived its purpose, the conditions that existed in 1965 no longer exist today?" Nelson claimed Section 2 was relevant today, based on ongoing “discrimination” in some states, and was “sadly, still current, still rampant, and still contaminating our democracy and our electoral processes.” Even good news for black turnout was turned around in Bennett’s telling. Bennett: There are people who point to the fact that Black turnout has actually improved in recent elections. How do those turnout numbers obscure what folks might see as inequities in access and representation when it comes to voting? Then came the un-journalistic fawning over a liberal guest, a regular habit on PBS. Bennett: Janai, I see the late Justice Thurgood Marshall there in a picture over your shoulder. Can I ask you, what did it feel like to follow in his footsteps and argue a major voting rights case before the U.S. Supreme Court? A transcript is available, click "Expand." PBS News Hour 10/20/25 7:23:44 p.m. (ET) Geoff Bennett: Republican lawmakers in North Carolina moved forward with a proposal today to redraw their state's congressional map in a way that would eliminate its only swing district. The mid-decade redistricting is part of a nationwide push by President Trump and his Republican allies to help the GOP maintain control of Congress in next year's elections, often through maps that have the effect of diluting Black political power and diminishing the voting strength of communities of color. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared willing to issue a ruling that could further that effort during arguments in a Louisiana redistricting case. NAACP Legal Defense Fund president Janai Nelson argued the case before the court in defense of Louisiana voters, and she joins us now. Thanks for being with us. Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense Fund: Thank you. Happy to be here. Geoff Bennett: So what was the main argument you presented before the court in defense of the existing Louisiana map that includes two majority-Black districts? What did you want the justices to understand about the stakes? Janai Nelson: Well, I wanted the justices to understand that that map was remedying very flagrant violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and that, if for some reason, that map was not acceptable to them, that the proper recourse is to send it back to the lower courts, so that another map could be drawn that does remedy the racial discrimination that we proved in the case, and that what the court should not do is tinker with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, because it has been such a formidable protection and tool to advance our democracy. And you just explained the many ways in which Black voters are often exploited or their votes are diluted for a variety of reasons, including sometimes partisan aims. And the Voting Rights Act, Section 2 in particular, is the only shield from that we can use with any expectation of real protection. Geoff Bennett: For the unfamiliar, what is Section 2 and what does it do? Janai Nelson: So, Section 2 is part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It's a permanent provision of that act. And it basically says that there's no voting practice, procedure, qualification, anything having to do with voting that can abridge the right to vote, so deny it or dilute it or harm it in any way, minimize it, on account of race. Geoff Bennett: And, as we mentioned, North Carolina Republicans are moving forward with this plan to effectively oust one of the state's three Black members of Congress by carving up an area of Eastern North Carolina in this congressional map, and this district happens to have a large Black population. So how does that square with what constitutes racial dilution under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act? Janai Nelson: Well, it's pretty squarely a violation of the act, as far as I can tell. It is using Black voters as a means for gaining political power or partisan control. And while the Supreme Court did say in another case, Rucho v. Common Cause, that it will not entertain any partisan gerrymandering claims, racial gerrymandering is still unlawful and it's still justiciable by the court, meaning that those claims are still viable before the court. And I can't imagine how this map in North Carolina can achieve its partisan goals lawfully in the way that they're trying to do it now without violating the rights of Black voters. And that's why we really need section 2, because Section 2 protects voters from being exploited by politicians or people who simply want to perpetuate discrimination. Geoff Bennett: And is that what you would say to people who say, look, the Voting Rights Act has outlived its purpose, the conditions that existed in 1965 no longer exist today? Janai Nelson: Absolutely. Well, one of the things that's important to know is that Section 2 is not anchored in any particular facts from 1965. It is based on current conditions. So the exact type of discrimination that we're seeing in places like North Carolina, as we saw in Louisiana, as we saw and proved in winning a case in — just two years ago in Alabama in a case called Allen v. Milligan, this type of discrimination is, sadly, still current, still rampant, and still contaminating our democracy and our electoral processes. And it's not just an issue for the voters who are impacted. It's an issue for all Americans, because any elected official who is voted on, on a discriminatory map and ultimately winds up legislating is legislating from a discriminatory foundation. And, ultimately, that harms the legitimacy of our governing body. So it's something that all Americans should care deeply about. Geoff Bennett: There are people who point to the fact that Black turnout has actually improved in recent elections. How do those turnout numbers obscure what folks might see as inequities in access and representation when it comes to voting? Janai Nelson: So those turnout numbers are a very interesting story. One, they are a direct product of the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. So, without the Voting Rights Act, we would not see turnout improving in the way that it has. A lot of the progress has been a result of litigation. It's been a result of the deterrent effect of having these statutes in place, which is precisely why they need to stay in place and why they are continuing to protect our democracy. Geoff Bennett: Janai, I see the late Justice Thurgood Marshall there in a picture over your shoulder. Can I ask you, what did it feel like to follow in his footsteps and argue a major voting rights case before the U.S. Supreme Court? Janai Nelson: It felt like a very heavy weight of responsibility. And it felt like I had the honor of caring for a very important legacy of this institution that has argued so many important landmark cases to improve and perfect our nation across our 85 years of existence. And so it was a true honor. And I just hope that I lived up to a fraction of his legacy. Geoff Bennett: Janai Nelson with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, thanks again for your time. We appreciate it. Janai Nelson: Thank you.

This Five Minute Fudge is our very favorite of any fudge, and you can make it in a snap. It’s the perfect holiday treat! This is also a wonderful gift for friends and family during the holiday season! ❤️WHY WE LOVE THIS EASY RECIPE This fudge is one of our most popular recipes during the holiday...

New details emerged Wednesday morning after a driver crashed a vehicle into a Secret Service barricade close to the White House. On Tuesday night, a driver drove his vehicle into a Secret Service gate on 17th and E St, NW in Washington, D.C., at approximately 10:37 p.m. local time, a United States Secret Service spokesperson told Blaze News. 'Charges for Unlawful Entry and Destruction of Government Property are currently pending.'The suspect "was immediately arrested and transported to an area hospital for a mental health evaluation," the spokesman added in an update to Blaze News Wednesday morning.The Secret Service spokesperson said that "charges for Unlawful Entry and Destruction of Government Property are currently pending."RELATED: Suspect arrested after crashing vehicle into barricade near White House Photo by Andrew Leyden/Getty Images"We appreciate the swift actions of our Uniformed Division officers and are grateful for the Metropolitan Police Department for their prompt response," the spokesperson concluded in the statement.Blaze News contacted U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro's office for comment on the pending charges. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!