I'm not sure how they are defining "medical testing"? I assume the child get haircuts. Claiming that running tests on the hair is medical testing of the child seems quite a stretch.
Joel Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Ave. Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 email: jlsa...@wwisp.com <mailto:jlsatty%40wwisp.com> website: www.joelsogol.com Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight - which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 10:03 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RFRA challenge to DNA testing requirement for child's citizenshipapplication (derivative of parental citizenship) >From S.T. v. Napolitano, 2012 WL 6048222 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 5): S.T. is a citizen of India. He is currently eleven years old. Bakula and Ashok Trivedi are both natives of India. Ashok became a United States citizen in 1997; Bakula became a citizen in 1995. Bakula and Ashok Trivedi practice the Swaminarayan religion. They believe they are required to follow their swami's religious instruction fully and completely. About a year before S.T.'s birth in 2001, their swami told them they would soon have a child who was a gift from a divine source. The swami instructed them that the child must never be subjected to medical testing. They assert that they have complied with this instruction. In September 2001, S.T.'s parents arrived with S.T. at the U.S. Consulate in Mumbai, India. They asserted that they were S.T.'s biological parents and applied on his behalf for a Consular Report of a Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America ("CRBA"), a passport, and a social security card. The applications were denied. The denial documents stated that the Trivedis failed to provide evidence of a blood relationship to S.T. but that the Trivedis could submit DNA test results for S.T. to provide the evidence. A consular official with whom the Trivedis met indicated that the applications would not be granted without the DNA test results. S.T.'s application for a social security card was denied in February 2010. In February 2010, S.T. entered the United States under a humanitarian-parole grant. In April 2010, S.T. again filed a passport application and an N-600. The State Department and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") again asked for DNA testing to establish the biological relationship between S.T. and the Trivedis. No DNA testing was performed. The passport application was denied in December 2010 and the N-600 was denied in September 2011. On June 28, 2011, S.T. filed a new passport application. In October, 2011, S.T. filed an appeal from the denial of his N-600 with the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office. During this appeal process, S.T. claimed a religious objection to DNA testing, stating, "Even if [S.T.'s] birth certificate is not accepted as evidence by USCIS for a claimed biological relationship, [S.T.'s] religious beliefs forbid the use of scientific testing." The court dismissed the Free Exercise Clause claim, but the RFRA claim remains to be litigated. (On a nonlegal note, if I were the husband, I'd be a bit suspicious about the swami's instructions, but maybe I just have a dirty mind.) Eugene
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
