OMAHA — A Nebraska couple sued state health officials Thursday because they believe their rights were violated when their newborn baby was seized so a mandatory blood test could be performed.

“This is a classic case of the government overreaching and violating a family’s constitutional rights,” said Jeff Downing, the couple’s attorney.

Mary and Josue Anaya believe that the Bible instructs against deliberately drawing blood and that ignoring that directive may shorten a person’s life. State health officials “conspired to deny the Anayas their rights of due process, and to seize and test baby Joel without notice or a hearing in district court,” according to the filed in U.S. District Court in Omaha.

“They seized him and asked questions later,” Downing said.

The Anaya family is not seeking damages, but they want to ensure that this won’t happen again if they have more children. That’s why Downing also appealed the state court orders allowing the seizure and testing.

It’s the first time in Nebraska a child was taken from parents to draw the drops of blood from the baby’s heel for the screening, said Marla Augustine, spokeswoman for the state Department of Health and Human Services. Nebraska is one of four states — South Dakota, Michigan and Montana are the others — that doesn’t offer a religious exemption for parents who don’t want the test performed.

Health officials say the newborn screening program is one of the state’s most cost-effective public health programs. The newborn blood test — usually performed within 48 hours of birth — screens for dozens of rare diseases, some of which can cause severe mental retardation or death if left undetected.

Last year, out of 26,819 babies tested, 537 tested positive for one of the dozens of diseases, and 43 of those results were confirmed, according to the state’s Newborn Screening Program.

Augustine said Thursday that state officials had not seen the lawsuit and would have no comment. The lawsuit names the state health department director and two people who oversee the newborn screening program.

The decision to seize Joel Anaya and test him was made by Douglas County prosecutors who have said they only did what was necessary to protect the baby’s health. The federal lawsuit does not name as defendants the prosecutors who asked for the tests or the sheriff’s deputies who seized Joel.

Mary Anaya gave birth at home Sept. 2. The Anayas received a letter weeks later asking if they would have Joel tested, and said if they did not, the county attorney would be notified.

No one ever told them that if the screening wasn’t performed the baby could be placed in foster care, Downing said.

When the Anayas’ daughter Rosa was born in 2003, a hearing was held in Douglas County District Court and the couple voiced their objections. The state Supreme Court eventually turned down their arguments, but Rosa never was tested.

This time, the county wanted to make sure the testing was completed, said Nicole Brundo Goaley, a deputy Douglas County Attorney. So the county got an order from a juvenile court judge to test the baby.

Sheriff’s deputies came Oct. 11 to take the baby, who was almost 6 weeks old, and a Douglas County juvenile court judge ordered the next day that the baby remain in foster care until the preliminary results came back and confirmed further testing wasn’t needed.

In the meantime, social workers let Mary Anaya nurse her son several times a day, and he was returned to her Oct. 16 when the tests came back negative.

The county attorney dropped the case, and no criminal charges were filed.