You know, it was kind of enjoyable pushing down the temptation to wield my keyboard and spout off online knowing that no one reads this and that I could basically get my point across using less verbiage on Facebook and
. But with the Scott Brown victory last night and something I read in today's Chronicle (course, leave it to the Chronicle to do that), I will probably start writing again with a little more frequency. Plus, the primaries are 5 months away, and I most definitely will not be able to control myself.
So, what from today's Chronicle caught my eye?
This article on a bill introduced by my State Assemblywoman Fiona Ma. In the article, it talks about a bill to regulate tattoo and piercing parlors, which are not subject to state jurisdiction, rather, are left to local authorities. I don't disagree that some amount of jurisdiction needs to be had over these operations, as the article notes there are significant concerns regarding the safety and cleanliness of these operations. Tattoo needles do pose health concerns if not disposed of properly. Ok, that's all fine, be it the state or the cities, just pick one and be consistent.
No, what got me was this: "She also wants to ban the tattooing of anyone under age 18 - regardless of whether a parent consents." The article fails to dig into this any deeper, rather, focusing solely on the safety aspects of the bill. What is the rationale for this? The illogical and inconsistent treatment of those under the age of 18 in this state boggles my mind- if you're under 18, you must have a parent to get a piercing, to get a tattoo (for now), or to even go see a movie. No, the State of California has decided that all of those are decisions that must be made in consultation with a parent; yet, when asked to have an adult be notified about whether or not to have an abortion, well, of course you can't do that, think of the safety of the minor. If Fiona Ma wants to protect people under the age of 18 from getting Hep B by banning them from getting a tattoo, why can't the same logic be applied to underage abortions? I simply do not get it.
Now, while I voted for those propositions for adult notification, my analyses of those propositions were predicated on a sense of consistency; how can the state have laws requiring parental involvement for things like the above, but be insistent that having a similar law in place would be bad when deciding on whether or not to have an abortion? I'm asking for consistency and some logical reasoning. I, of course, realize that I'm talking about Democrats in the legislature, so consistency and logical reasoning are noticeably absent the vast majority of the time.
Nevertheless, I'd hope that saner heads prevail on the topic of banning people under the age of 18 from getting a tattoo. If, as Fiona Ma seems to argue, the point is to make these places safer, then make them safer, but there's no reason to simply ban a portion of the population from getting a tattoo if their parents are fine with it.
