It was a big, epoch-making step into the future.
With a stumble.
The Genetic Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 was approved 414-1 in the House of Representatives Thursday, joining a 95-0 Senate vote for a similar bill April 24. The president is almost certain to sign whatever emerges from conference.
If made law, it will make it illegal for insurers to deny insurance to, or raise rates on, applicants based on results of genetic testing. Employers can't hire, deny jobs, fire or promote on such grounds, either.
After too long, the federal government (way behind many states, which already have outlawed genetic discrimination) has stepped into a "new" era that is really already decades old: the era of genetic medicine, which can help spot problems ahead of time and help moderate or prevent them.
Many Americans have hesitated to get genetic tests for fear of discrimination. (Think of the 1970s, when some insurers sought to deny coverage to African Americans based on genetic markers for sickle-cell anemia.) Now, maybe more people will feel free to be tested. And they should.
Everyone has, on average, about six genes that, if expressed, would represent an increased risk of disease. But a test showing a risky gene is not a death sentence - it's a basis for action. Just having the gene doesn't mean you'll certainly get anything.
If tests do show increased risk, there are options. Suppose a person's tests reveal a gene for high cholesterol or heart disease. Better to know early in life - when you can control the effects through exercise, diet and medication - than in your 60s. That's the medicine of the present and future.
So why did it take
more than a dozen years
to pass such a bill? (The first version was proposed by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D., N.Y.) in 1995!) Business lobbies, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, didn't like it, and some members of Congress, such as Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Texas), balked, fighting hard on behalf of insurance companies.
Here's the stumble with the legislation that's finally been passed: The grounds for lawsuits are too narrow. Plaintiffs could sue - but these bills' language, particularly the Senate version, would really hedge them in, especially regarding insurance companies.
Opponents claimed they were worried plaintiffs would turn garden-variety disputes over insurance coverage into civil-rights cases. So Coburn got a "firewall" that would prevent plaintiffs from suing both their insurers and their employers who offer that insurance.
The resulting compromise at least gets needed legislation passed, but a new president and a new Congress should massage the fine print.
People who suffer discrimination on other grounds - age, race, class, religion - have broad rights, as they should, to seek legal redress. In the genetic age, people need to know that, where their genetic information is concerned, they have the same protections.