As one of the last survivors of a family clear-cut by a genetic disease, I tend to notice stories on the periphery that a lot of other people miss on their way to the sports pages, or on their way to seeing what El Caudillo del Mar-A-Lago has thrown up on the electric Twitter machine on any particular morning. Also, as we have tried to do here in the shebeen, it's important to keep an eye on what's going on in the House of Representatives, because it's fairly clear that the president* is going to sign whatever gets put on his desk because it beats working. Unfortunately, at the moment, when the question is asked, "How many fronts are there on which to fight?" the answer is, "all of them, Katie."

Which bring me to this little tidbit from the science blog, Plos. One of the very few things that C-Plus Augustus did right is now in danger of being unraveled.

According to GINA, employers can't use genetic information to hire, fire, or promote an employee, or require genetic testing, and health insurers can't require genetic tests nor use results to deny coverage. The law clearly defines genetic tests – DNA, RNA, chromosomes, proteins, metabolites – and genetic information – genetic test results and family history of a genetic condition. GINA refers to a case, Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Lab from 1998, that allowed clerical and administrative workers to sue their employer for requiring testing for "highly private and sensitive medical genetic information such as syphilis, sickle cell trait, and pregnancy" without their consent or knowledge during a general employee health exam. I'm not sure how syphilis and pregnancy got lumped in with sickle cell trait (a carrier), but requiring any such test is considered an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment. The sickle cell request also violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by singling out employees of African ancestry.

Of course, this kind of testing vastly expanded the universe of "pre-existing conditions," which is why genetic privacy came up over and over again during the debate on the Affordable Care Act. Now that the final assault on the latter is underway, it's probably not surprising that they're coming for these protections as well.

The bill is built around an exception in GINA concerning genetic testing that is part of health or genetic services the employer offers, such as part of a wellness program. However, GINA stipulates that only the person and the health care provider or board certified genetic counselor can view the results. GINA also spells out that genetic testing as part of a wellness program must be entirely voluntary. A May 16, 2016, ruling from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission laid the groundwork for penalizing employees who refuse to answer questions about their or their spouses' health. This could amount to thousands of dollars a year, according to a report from the Kaiser Family Foundation. H.R.1313 would make that even worse.

Anybody who's worked in our deregulated, de-unionized private sector knows very well that "voluntary" doesn't mean what it used to mean. And workplace "wellness" programs are a mixed bag, at best.

H.R.1313 would "effectively repeal the fundamental genetic and health privacy protections in GINA and the ADA. It would allow workplace wellness programs to ask employees questions about genetic tests taken by themselves or their families, and to make inquiries about the medical history of employees, their spouses, their children, and other family members," Dr. Cox writes. "Other family members harkens back to GINA, bastardizing its protections, for the 2008 law casts a wide net for relatives, down to the "fourth degree."…I also fear misunderstanding on the part of people charged with analyzing anyone's genetic fitness, so to speak, on the basis of a list of mutations or other gene variants. Remember the sickle cell screen of the early 1970s? That was a disaster because many parents thought that a finding of children having "sickle cell trait" meant that they had or would develop the disease. I was even told off-the-record that at least one parental suicide resulted from the well-meant but widespread misinformation. Will wellness coaches serve as the go-betweens for employees and employers, and if so, how much genetics do they know? Would a wellness coach know that the Huntington's disease that is in the family of the active and healthy 24-year-old takes many years to develop, even after the first symptoms appear?

The sponsor of the bill, Virginia Foxx, Republican of Virginia, is not the brightest bulb in an admittedly dim chandelier. My guess is that you could have slipped a provision allowing mandatory bloodletting into the bill and she wouldn't notice, as long as Medicaid wasn't paying for it. But this is not the kind of thing you want incompetent amateurs screwing around with. God, how I love representative democracy.

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page.

Charles P. Pierce Charles P Pierce is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io