> If two consenting adults want to make a agreement that includes exchange of their own genetic information, I really don't see the issue.
The problem is one of bargaining power: Consent must be given freely – but in cases where one party in an exchange has a lot more bargaining power, the other party often will agree to something because of fear of retribution or a threat of force. Example: If an employee is told by the boss he or she will be fired if they do not have sex right now, any consent in that scenario is not given freely, but under duress.
The boss is threatening to abuse their power if they do not have sex. An employee can sue the boss for violating the contract.
> but in cases where one party in an exchange has a lot more bargaining power, the other party often will agree to something because of fear of retribution or a threat of force.
You seem to be implying this is bad thing but it makes sense that a company (could be thousands of people) should have more bargaining power than an employee (1 person). What is the threat of force here? That is illegal. What is the retribution here if an employee chooses a different employer because the employee wants to decline testing?
what happens when all insurance plans make this a hard requirement, and you effectively can not be employed, or insured without it.
Don't think it will happen? Try to get internet access, or medical insurance without agreeing to mandatory binding arbitration (that is, signing away your ability to sue).
The problem is one of bargaining power: Consent must be given freely – but in cases where one party in an exchange has a lot more bargaining power, the other party often will agree to something because of fear of retribution or a threat of force. Example: If an employee is told by the boss he or she will be fired if they do not have sex right now, any consent in that scenario is not given freely, but under duress.