Blog stage 7- blood testing justification

There is a bill in some Texas counties that allows trained officers to draw blood if there is suspicion of drunk driving. Some of the counties have it on "no refusal" times, usually during holidays, some on on all weekends, and others year-round. First, if a person refuses a breathalyzer, which many lawyers recommend, the police officer has the right to perform a forced blood drawing. If this is the case, the officer must first obtain a search warrant by a waiting judge, and then transport the suspect to a heath department, a hospital, or a "clean room" in the police station. Depending where they are transported to, either a nurse or a trained officer will perform the test. I want to start by addressing the breathalyzer. Any lawyer will tell you to refuse one because 1) they are inaccurate and 2) if the person passed the tests (walk the line, touch your nose, and so on) the lack of breathalyzer makes it easier to over-turn the DWI. Now, an officer offers you a breathalyzer, and you refuse, knowing it is in your best interest. What they did not mention, however, is if you refuse, you automatically set yourself up for a blood test. A call is made to a waiting judge, the search warrant is issued, and, before you know it, you are being approached with a man/woman with a needle. Again, depending on the county this can happen only on holidays, on weekends, or year-round. Now, this is bogus. It goes against many rights. To have something forcefully entered into your veins against your consent just because you refused a breathalyzer goes against so many personal rights. To me, it is a set up. Take the breathalyzer, and you are most likely going to get a reading that will put you in a "guilty" position and left facing DWI charges. Refuse the breathalyzer (thinking the loss of the licence is better than the DWI), you set yourself up for a forced blood test. The blood tests have given a 100% DWI conviction rate. This takes rights away. Yes, drunk drivers are deadly and should be taken off the road, but not in a way that also takes our constitutional rights away- a fair trial. This is only part of my concern. Ok, they say the officers are trained, but it takes many practices before a person is able to "stick" successfully. Not to mention, that if the person is drunk, they are most likely dehydrated, making it even harder to get a successful "stick". All- in-all, this bill wories me. I understand the government wanting to keep its citizens safe, but to what extent is it willing to go to accomplish this? Apparently, they dont mind bending their OWN rules and regulations to do so.