Proposed legislation requiring in-person parental permission for indoor tanning customers under the age of 18 was recently derailed in Connecticut when a state senator tacked on a “parental consent for abortions” amendment for the same age group.
The age-restricting tanning bill appeared to be headed for passage when Sen. Michael McLachlan (R-Danbury) introduced the abortion amendment.
Currently, the state requires tanners under the age of 16 to complete a form with a space for a parent’s signature. The new legislation called for a parent to go to the salon with their minor child, receive educational information about risks, and then sign their permission – in front of the attendant – for the activity.
Some proponents of the tanning bill speculate that McLachlan added the abortion amendment to eradicate the tanning bill, as an intense abortion debate would have been an unattractive proposition for lawmakers (considering the legislature was in its final days of session). As such, the measure died – without a vote – in the Senate.
McLachlan maintains that adding parental consent for abortion was a legitimate companion cause, stating that if consent is appropriate for tanning or ear-piercing, there’s no reason it shouldn’t also apply to other matters of the body. He had previously introduced parental consent for abortion in its own bill; however, that measure didn’t make it out of committee.
Source
newstimes.com: McLachlan kills teen tanning bill by tacking on abortion amendment
