There seems to be growing emphasis behind the movement that Texas drivers who refuse to submit to a Breathalyzer test must be required to give blood for chemical analysis, according to a recent news report. That story said more and more cities across The Lone Star State are considering requiring people to give a blood sample if they do not want to take a Breathalyzer test.

This idea of a "no refusal" policy (so dubbed because it would prevent drivers who are pulled over on suspicion of DUI from giving evidence) might have some benefit to public safety. Very few people dispute that point.

However, how much benefit would be gained from a "no refusal" approach is not clear, and criminal defense attorneys raise a good point when they say this policy infringes on people's right to be free from unjustified searches and seizures. They also point out that if we can violate people's bodies to produce evidence, we are heading down a road that may lead to further intrusions.

Another worrisome element of mandatory blood testing is that it seems to discourage people from exercising their right to take their case to trial. The captain of the Houston police's traffic division said many people who have to give blood evidence simply forget the idea of taking their case to court.

Thus, we have to ask ourselves: are we really willing to give up this much personal liberty in order to obtain whatever increase in safety such a policy would give us?

Other states that have "no refusal" policies include Missouri, Florida, Illinois and Louisiana.

Source: Fox News, "More Texas Cities to Demand Blood Tests for Drunk Drivers," Dec. 12, 2011