[benVFR]

The 2 cases where this has already been a problem..

Companies & employers testing women for a breast cancer gene and dropping their coverage.. it's no guarantee they are going to get breast cancer. My girlfriend was in this scenario, her mother died of breast cancer.. her doctor wanted her to have the genetic screening so they could step up preventive care if she had the gene.. but having the test before this law would mean no life insurance for her if she came back positive. Even though having that genetic marker is *not* a 100% chance you're getting cancer. She finally had it done and was lucky as she came back negative.

Quite a ways in the past (1960s and 1970s?) some of the companies could already test for the gene for sickle cell anemia and used it to discriminate against African Americans. It turns out far far more people of African descent have this gene.. cause it provides increased resistance against malaria.

The worst case scenarios are pretty hideous if this kind of discrimination is allowed.. imagine they take your kids blood at birth.. and you find out 24 hours later he or she is never going to get any health insurance their whole life cause of some genetic marker they found.

I gotta google some more today.. I actually suspect Ron Paul voted against this on some technicality rather then the core of it, as he has actually come out in favor of stopping genetic discrimination before if I understand correctly.