"bans health insurance companies and your employers from using your genetic information against you."

Thats going to become awful interesting, as genetics become more and more an open book. What if there are lazy genes? what if there are complete jerk genes? What if there are prone to irrational mood swing genes? I guess businesses will just not want to know. If they don't know then the law can't hurt them.

I like the law, I just think there will be weird consequences of it down the road.

Speaking as a member of a minority group who to this day doesn't enjoy some of the same benefits as most of you, I for one would like to see discrimination passed on to the genetically inferior.

Or we could just all get along. Group hug?

You know why striving for quote-unquote genetic purity is a bad idea (besides the obvious reasons)? The same reason trying to get everyone speaking the same language is a bad idea: Keep your portfolio diversified.

I'd also recommend the current issue of PLOS Biology, which has an article speculating on numerous ethical risks associated with genomic research.

Money quote:

"Just one [ethical] breach...or even the threat of such a breach, could hurt public trust and significantly hamper the ability to conduct genetic research.

Imagine you are watching the news and learn about a study linking race to IQ, which you find offensive. You later learn that they used your DNA for this study. You donated your DNA five years ago for use in a genetic association study of cancer and heart disease. At the time, you were told that other researchers might want to use your DNA for other types of research. You want to withdraw your consent, but it is too late. Your genetic information has been analyzed by many researchers and is now integrated in databanks throughout the world."

I'm fairly certain that the protagonist of Gattaca mentions that such a law exists in that fictional universe. Thus this law in our real universe does not invalidate a Gattaca-like possible future.

Wiki states: Senator Coburn objected to provisions in the bill that allow discrimination based on genetic information from embryos and fetuses. Recently, the Boston Globe stated that the embryo loophole has been closed, and that Tom Coburn is reevaluating his opposition to the bill.

In other words, he's a typical right wing nutjob.

As a non-american, I gently remind you that this is not the Constitution. But now I forgot why this is important. Ask me in 1X years.

@Plague: Maybe I'm being dense here but I don't get your point. How does reevaluating opposition to the bill translate to right-wing nut job?

There are other examples of Coburn's nuttiness - christ, the guy opposed bills honoring Rachel Carson and thinks doctors should be allowed to test their patients for HIV whether necessary or not. But I'm missing how this example ties in. Is there more to the story? Is he really reevaluating opposition or just fudging?

You know how it's against federal law to fire someone because of their religion, skin color or sexual orientation? Well, guess how they get around that in Texas.

Texas, the state that went to war not once but TWICE to uphold the right of one man to keep another as a slave (and even THEN kept slavery going for two years after losing the Civil War!) is a "right to work" state. "Right to work" sounds good, doesn't it? It's not.

You see, young Orwell, in Texas "right to work" means that your employer doesn't have to give you a reason when they fire you.

Did y'all catch that, or was that too quick on the draw?

THEY CAN FIRE YOU FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY WANT TO because THEY DON'T HAVE TO GIVE A REASON.

So there's already a Texas-sized hole in the law - a legal Texas two-step - that allows employers to get around present anti-discrimination laws and will let 'em violate this law as well. After all, it's damn-near impossible to prove why you were fired when your employer isn't required to tell you.

@nygenxer: Speaking of conspiracy theories. Sorry, but many states are right to work states. ([en.wikipedia.org]) And basically all non-union work is at-will employment. This doesn't give the right to discriminate. Just to fire without cause. If you can prove the reason/cause for termination was discriminatory, it's illegal.

@nygenxer: Actually the Feds don't care if you discriminate against gay ppl... that's why gay marriage is still the issue it is. Race, gender, religion, creed, color and nationality are the main protected differences. Age is protected federally I think between 35 and 65 but I could be wrong on that one.

I can discriminate against fat ppl, gay ppl, ugly ppl and the smelly all I like and get away with it in a Federal Court.

@Plague: You've got to love how the insurance companies try to cut off coverage before a child is even born. Downs and several other MAJOR birth defects are detectable NOW. Can you imagine being told that your kid has Down's Syndrome and then being dropped from your insurance company because they don't want to cover the vitiman and other therapies that would keep your child from having close to if not a normal IQ...

@nygenxer: Just as a point of clarification, there is no federal law prohibiting employers from firing someone because of their sexual orientation. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) has been proposed several times but is routinely defeated by Republican congress.

@Final:

Yeah, you're right. It turns my stomach knowing that it still happens in 2008.

@extracrispy:

Yep, you're right. Unbelievable, isn't it?

@Plague: "'Tom Coburn is reevaluating his opposition to the bill.'

In other words, he's a typical right wing nutjob."

It would actually seem to indicate that he was holding out for a tougher bill against genetic discrimination. Besides, right wing nutjobs are like antimatter. They exist, but they're vastly outnumbered by their (left wing) counterparts, at least on this planet.

@Final: Isn't disability that doesn't affect job performance also protected?

I've gotta admit I'm not too overly fussed about job discrimination against the smelly.

@moff: overspecialize and you breed in weakness. Amen, brother. ;)

Wait - Gattaca was a *dys*topian film? But everyone was pretty and had great genes - unless your parents were stupid and had a old-fashioned "faith" birth.

@nygenxer:
"THEY CAN FIRE YOU FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY WANT TO because THEY DON'T HAVE TO GIVE A REASON."

And you can QUIT AND FIND A DIFFERENT JOB OR START YOUR OWN COMPANY for whatever reason you want to. Seems fair to me.

@extracrispy: although oddly, if i read this right, employees of the federal government cannot be discriminated against on the basis of orientation. i'd be surprised if private employers haven't been challenged on the subject from a harassment angle, on the basis of creating a hostile work environment that affects their employment conditions.

the flip side of that federal generosity is that on a certain level, it already does discriminate on a genetic basis. there was a story in the la times a few months ago (i can't cite a specific reference) about an active-duty soldier who was denied benefits when he came down with something, when a screening revealed that he was genetically predisposed to that condition.

@blorp: i'm curious to know how much luck you've had at quitting a job on a whim to find new ones or start your own companies. i've never tried that myself, but i always had the impression it could be pretty tough to do. without that personal experience though, i don't think i could make that same comment without being a prick.

@moff: Agreed, genetic diversity is valuable.

@blorp: It was definitely dystopian from the protagonist's perspective. It was also dystopian from Jude Law's character's point of view, since at the moment he was injured he became worthless to society. However, all of the happy perfect people would think it was utopian. Of course, if it was all one or the other it wouldn't be a very good story. Every dystopia has a utopia inside, every utopia has a dystopia as well.

@blorp: It was dystopian along the lines of freedom and self determination. Letting ones genes decide their career path instead of self interest, determination and hard work is tantamount to slavery.

Everyone was pretty, seemingly well feed, well educated and cared for but if you don't have a choice in what you do or how you help society what's the point? Just because you have a genetic inclination toward something doesn't mean you love it. Just because you're not a natural at something doesn't mean you won't work your ass off to be the best at it.

debate all you like about it, there will never be a law that holds up for the individual against an organization.