Asked whether the DNA samples from children in support cases should also be given to law enforcement agencies, the Mayor said: “The same way fingerprints are available, DNA should be available.” He called DNA tests “a wonderful protection for the innocent and another method of catching the guilty,” as well as a tool for determining paternity.
When asked whether all children should have DNA tests at birth, the Mayor said: “I don’t know that that’s the proposal, but I would have no problem with that, or fingerprinting all children. We go through a massive effort to try to fingerprint large numbers of children” now, he said, “so in case they are lost they can be found again or in case if they are kidnapped they can be found again. There is absolutely no reason why people should be afraid of being identified.”
-snip-
“It’s not invasive,” the Mayor said. “It doesn’t invade any right of privacy. You don’t have a right not to be identified. I don’t remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified.”
________________________________________________________
OK. Point well taken.
Maybe I should have made myself clearer. When I referenced the nanny state, I was referring to treating adults like adults, not treating children and newborns like adults.
So the parents of the children don’t get to be treated like adults?
“When I referenced the nanny state, I was referring to treating adults like adults, not treating children and newborns like adults.”
Then try this one:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0034,katz,17581,1.html
Honestly, it’s hard to find any instance, except on abortion, where Rudy has come down on the side of ‘less government interference is better’.