By Scott McDonald
May 13, 2002

Today, I was refused medical treatment on a routine office visit because I do not have, and could not provide, a photo ID.   My appointment, which had been scheduled for six weeks in advance, was with Dermatologist Patricia L. Wilson (of Dermatology Associates, Huntsville, Alabama, 539-2741).   When I arrived at the office the attendant asked me to fill out the necessary forms and submit a photo ID.  I told her I would be paying with cash and there would be no need to file with any insurance company.  I then asked why a photo ID was needed.  I was told that it was office policy.  When I explained that I do not have a photo ID, the office manager, Martin Beck, said the doctor would not provide the requested service unless I submitted a photo ID.
I left without treatment.

I'm sending this out primarily for the benefit of those readers who still don't understand the far-reaching implications of President Bush's Homeland Security initiative which includes proposed federal standards for nationalized driver's licenses incorporating biometric identification linked to personal data and other identifying information stored on an imbedded microchip.

Some people still have the false notion that they can simply "erase" the chip or render it inoperable to avoid undesirable consequences.  To those, I would say that a simpler solution would be to just throw the card away altogether.  The result will be the same: You will be denied access to, and use of all goods, services and rights dependant upon possession and display of the "voluntary" IDs.

As most readers know, I was denied renewal of my Alabama driver's license due to my religious objections with regard to mandatory submission of a social security number.  I subsequently filed suit and we are currently awaiting reply from the Alabama Supreme Court on our Petition for Certiorari in that matter. (The state will not issue a "non-driver" photo ID to anyone eligible for a driver's license, and they demand an SSN from applicants for non-driver IDs anyway. So that is not an option.)

If sufficient numbers of people do not begin now to object to universal demands for submission of state-issued IDs as a condition for services, there will soon come a time when all activity will necessitate possession of some form of chip-imbedded ID, and there will be no viable opportunity for objection.

Read the rest on the Educate Yourself Website