House approves tattoo bill (without abortion amendment)
Gadi Dechter reports this morning that the House of Delegates unanimously approved a bill that would require parental approval for minors to get tattoos or body piercings. Seems pretty simple, but it became a major political hot potato this week when Del. Gail Bates, a HoCo Republican, tried to amend the legislation on the House floor in a way that would have made it also apply to abortion. The logic: Isn't abortion a bit more significant than piercing your nose?
House Speaker Mike Busch ruled the amendment out of order, saying it violated the "single subject rule," which requires that legislation address one topic only. That's a rule that is generally flexible when the party in charge wants it to be and strict when it doesn't. In this case, there's little chance that the House of Delegates would have approved a parental consent for abortion amendment, but allowing debate about it would have not only sidetracked the chamber for a time but would also have forced delegates to take a public position on something many of them would rather not. It's the kind of vote that's tailor-made for campaign attacks.
The GOP has been none too pleased with this turn of events. In the House Republican Caucus' blog, they write:
After a complex series of parliamentary maneuvers, the Speaker and the majority manipulated the rules of the House, taking advantage of superior numbers to do so, in order to stifle debate and avoid a vote.Given the fact that the majority party has sufficent votes to kill any amendment, what is the harm in allowing free and open debate on an issue as important as the health and safety of minors? One has to wonder what exactly they are afraid of.
Comments
Does anyone not see the TYRANNY here? Busch refuses to even CONSIDER an amendment to this bill.
Lets see where that leaves us.
Your 15 year old daughter MUST get a parents approval for an earring piercing or a tattoo but a teacher can refer her to a local PP office to receive a very invasive surgical procedure which could lead her into depression or even death WITHOUT her parents ever knowing why.
What is wrong with this picture?
Posted by: AnotherWatcher | February 24, 2009 12:37 PM
Personally, I find it disturbing that this is even an issue at all. Tattoos? Piercings? If the government is worried about the health and safety of children, they should be more concerned with providing housing for homeless children, ensuring education for those children, and getting crimiinals off the streets. Parents whose underaged children are getting piercings and tattoos without parental concent have more problems to worry about than whether it is legal.
Posted by: JFord | February 24, 2009 1:19 PM
When discussing specific legislation, could you please include the bill number in the post? That makes it much easier to find the text of the bill and the accompanying fiscal and policy note on the MGA's website (http://mlis.state.md.us/) Thanks.
Posted by: Kevin R | February 24, 2009 1:26 PM
It's HB 45. Just added a link to the entry.
Posted by: Andy Green | February 24, 2009 1:31 PM
Consider the facts:
As parents we are legally liable for our children and their actions until they are 18 years of age.
Thus we deserve the right to know about our children getting tattoos and abortions.
It's just that simple.
Thanks Annapolis for denying me my legal rights as a parent!
As a liable parent I have every right to know period!
Posted by: jay | February 24, 2009 1:50 PM
Propose a bill then.
Don't try to tack it on to something else.
What's next parental permission for school field-trips, college-visits and abortion bills?
Why not just craft a bill and debate it like that? Why the rider?
Oh wait, someone wanted to make a political point through grandstanding.
Posted by: James from Hampden | February 24, 2009 2:21 PM
Think of it as preserving the rights of the mother. If the child seeking the abortion was raped by her father, why should she be required by law to have parental consent for the abortion? That scenario is why every time this proposal is tried, it gets shot down. Regardless of your moral stance, you have to protect the victim in that case
Posted by: stuck at work | February 24, 2009 2:57 PM
"What's next parental permission for school field-trips"
You don't have kids do you?
Parental notification AND permission is required for field trips.
IF you had kids, would you not want to give permission for your daughter to receive a tattoo or an abortion at 14 years old?
Posted by: AnotherWatcher | February 24, 2009 3:01 PM
Hey James you ignorant liberal
I have the right to know about an abortion for my daughter when she is under the age of 18 considering that I am her parent and I am legally liable for her! Too much coomon sense for you
or do you just get all warm and fuzzy and support everything your heroes do in Annapolis!
Posted by: jay | February 24, 2009 3:17 PM
I have no opinion on parental consent of their child's abortion, but i will say that such an issue deserves its own debate on the floor of the General Assembly. The Democrats here aren't flexing political muscle to get a big policy win, they are using the rules of the GA to pass a bill without an improper amendment that would substantially impact a lot of people without the benefit of elected officials properly debating it in isolation (i.e., the debate would be constantly framed by whether or not tattoos need consent--a much less weighty issue, to be sure). This, jay, is James the "ignorant liberal"s point: regardless of the merits of parental notification for abortion, it is a major issue deserving of its own bill. That he presented it in a hostile tone doesn't diminish its relevance.
Posted by: Derek | February 24, 2009 5:31 PM
While in theory it makes sense to require parental consent for tattooing/piercing of a minor, and in fact no reputable studio will do a procedure without parental consent, the bill does not address the issue of enforcement. While it may technically require paperwork to be filled out and held on file for minors, all a violator has to do is destroy said paperwork and all proof of the infraction is lost. To assume that a minor that is going to have a tattoo/piercing done against the wishes of their parent but are then going to freely and truthfully admit to the name of the place that did it is ludicrous. To also exempt ear piercing done at mall kiosks and the like is also an irresponsible portion of the bill, considering that unless single use equipment is used and surgical grade metals in the jewelry, with proper training and sterilization it is very possible to contract diseases such as hepatitis and MRSA. Essentially all this bill does is impose fines that sound good in theory but are unenforceable in practice and fail to address other public health concerns.
Posted by: Melissa | February 24, 2009 7:12 PM
Thank you, reps, for not using this bill to bring in the abortion issue or opening up an opportunity for a debate. This is an entirely separate issue. And kids will get tattoos--and abortions--in the black market anyway, since prohibition doesn't work. You'll never stop either of these, no matter how much law and paperwork you put in front of them.
Posted by: Claire | February 27, 2009 7:59 AM