Foxnews...
Connecticut Teens Can
Get an Abortion But Can’t Get a Tan?
By Kristi Stone Hamrick
Published June 20, 2011
A bill that would have required parental approval to allow teenagers to
go to a tanning parlor died when it came into conflict with an
amendment that would require parental notification for abortions.
Apparently judging that to be a toxic combination, the Democratically
controlled Senate refused to bring the measure forward.
It occurred to Connecticut State Sen. Michael McLachlan, (R-Danbury),
that it was just as important to have parental involvement in choosing
an elective surgery, with all the uncertainties that surgery entails,
as it is to have parental involvement with an activity most closely
associated with Malibu Barbie and the Jersey Shore.
After all, we’re told excessive tanning is bad for your health. But
most grown ups agree that surgery has its drawback as well.
Pro-life or pro-choice, few people want to see young girls, living at
home, pressured to have abortion surgery by predatory males counting on
state policy to keep their misdeeds in the dark. And even if a girl is
so in danger at home that she needs to talk with a sympathetic judge
about her situation then it is the duty of those in authority to
compassionately help her. Young, vulnerable girls need protecting. Any
good mother can tell you that.
But not surprisingly, all the politically correct forces came to bare
on the senator, with all their usual sound and fury. Somehow, the
senator was engaging in a “ridiculous” campaign that kept proper
tanning regulations from seeing the light of day.
Speaking to Dan Lovallo of Talk of Connecticut, Sen. McLauchlan noted
that not only was his amendment not a surprise, last-minute tactic to
hurt the future of parental involvement in tanning (the measure was
filed in April) but it is an idea already under consideration in the
state.
Better regulation of tanning is probably a good idea, said the state
senator in the Wednesday radio interview, but “I don’t see how it could
possibly be ridiculous if in the state of Connecticut a parent has to
give permission to have your ears pierced if you’re a minor child and
yet a parent does not have to give permission to have an abortion.”
The self-appointed champion of tanning regulation, Nancy Alderman,
executive director of Environment and Human Health Inc., a North
Haven-based advocacy group, in discussing the events, told the
newstimes.com, “The World Health Organization says tanning beds are as
dangerous as cigarettes.”
Perhaps so. Long-term effects of things like tanning, smoking, drinking
and dangerous sexual practices seems like a good thing to discuss and
monitor on behalf of our children, along with things like good diet,
exercise and staying in school. But parents don’t look to the state to
decide which thing deserves their attention. For parents, it’s all of
the above.
The parents of Connecticut much be watching this farce with some
bemusement. Why would society regulate cigarette use, the distribution
of alcohol to minor and ear piercing but refuse to consider that a
surgery was worthy of conversation?
Parental involvement is said to be a factor in such social goods as
higher test scores, delayed sexual involvement, and avoidance of
criminal incarceration. Surely parental wisdom would be equally well
employed in a discussion about elective surgery, as it would be applied
to a discussion of sunscreen.
Recently a mother appearing on Good Morning America caused a national
outrage when she said that she gave her daughter Botox injections. The
San Francisco Human Services Agency began an investigation following
the show, and according to media reports, the girl has been removed
from her home.
Apparently, a procedure on a child is not something to be taken lightly
… unless, it would seem the procedure is abortion.
Read it at Foxnews
|
