In California minors can’t get a tan at a tanning salon without parental permission. That isn’t good enough for some legislators that have now voted to pass AB 105. AB 105 would prohibit teenagers from certain kinds of tanning, because apparently their parents are to stupid and/or don’t care for them like the nanny staters in the State Assembly do.
Three Republicans voted to save cheerleaders, the world and other at risk teens from their parent’s permission to tan. (Cook, Emmerson he is a co-sponsor, and Horton) One Democrat to her credit voted no (Galgiani)
No word on when Cook, Emmerson, Horton or the Dems will prohibit teenagers from sunbathing at beaches or swimming pools.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:00 am
They are protecting our 17 year olds from getting a tan, even though they have their parent’s permission but some, like Assemblyman Emmerson, want to mandate our 11 year olds have the HPV vaccination.
Only in California.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Brilliant observations, Mike! If it’s bad for youth to tan at the salon, shouldn’t we save them from the sun’s harmful rays everywhere?!
(BTW, clever Heroes reference, too!)
May 30th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Let me get this straight. You are saying that kids can’t get tans without parental consent, but that they can have surgery to remove a baby without parental consent?
May 30th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Color me surprised.
Combine this with the no spanking bill, and the phrase, “I’m gonna tan your hide” will become hate speech.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Gary, you got it wrong. It’s not remove a baby, but kill a baby.
I’m sure this bill will drive many teens to get back alley tans!
May 30th, 2007 at 12:00 am
You’re right, Mike. Wrong choice of words.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:00 am
Karen.
Funny thing happened in California. Although some lobbyists never show up to members offices to provide information, some do. Some lobbyists issue press releases…and some Members read those press releases as Emmerson did. Your press release, a plea for a strong opt out provision in the HPV bill…Emnmerson heard it..not from you..but from your press release. Emmerson got that strong opt out in the bill and it will require that notification to parents that they have the right to opt out and on how they can opt out EVERY YEAR in the bill..stronger than your press release. If those opt our provisions are stripped in Appropriations…Count Emmerson out….But if they stay…parents are empowered to make good decisions…and we’re appreciative that you wrote the press release you did. I can understand what was done because you weren’t around to work on the language. Fortunately, Ben Lopez and Randy Thommason were. They showed up. They gave information and they provided help. The only contact we had from you was to be yelled at in the hall. Feel free to stop by anytime.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:00 am
Joe,
Let’s get the facts straight here. CRI has been working on this legislation from the time of introduction.
We have been in many meetings with Assemblyman Huff and Assemblywoman Strickland trying to defeat this mandatory HPV Vaccination. At the 11th hour your boss decided to jump in without consulting with the members that had spent weeks actively working on this bill.
After we realized your boss had inserted himself, I came by the office (not the hall) and spoke with you about our concerns, I never yelled at you – It’s too bad you consider policy debate yelling.
In addition after that brief meeting in the office I contacted you leaving numerous phone messages that went unanswered. I was however still in close contact with Ben Lopez and aware of what your office was doing with the mandatory HPV bill – thanks to Ben.
Although we are thankful that the bill notifies parents about their right to opt out of all vaccinations, it is still bad public policy to have government mandating the HPV vaccination on our daughters as young as 11.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:00 am
Karen
Not sure about un returned phone calls, I’ll let my record stand on that one, but in terms of facts, it looks like it took you 50 minutes exactly to find my personal email address as you showed some class by sending me your above post to my personal email and that was appreciated…so…while you assert you could not find a way to contact me or communicate with me…you did pretty darn well to find my personal email today. Please keep it for your records and I have responded with my cell phone on that note too…now were good to go.
As to more facts and a little insight into interpersonal dynamics among the Republican members. Bob Huff is one of Bill Emmerson’s closest personal friends…I’d say he was the closest but Mimi Walters would be pissed…and I’m not going there :). And I”m sure you don’t know that Audra is a client of mine…so we were all talking and it was clear a strong op out wasn’t going to happen …Huff and Emmerson spoke and Emmerson said he thought he could get it done and when we did (not really the 11th hour for those of us in the process) Huff’s quote was “great! that’s what we wanted). I’m not sure if you feel you needed to be consulted, but I know the Members were talking and knew what we were trying to do.
As to bad public policy. To be sure the bill is flawed, but that thing was sailing out of committee and Huff and Emmerson thought it was better to have some strong parent rights components in the bill rather than none.
Emmerson holds no illusions that he will ever be good enough or conservative enough for you…but he did what he thought was best for parents in the face of the possibility parents would be left with no rights to opt out…I think he did the right thing.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:00 am
Joe,
Current law and all versions of the HPV mandate include a parental opt out. We can’t credit you or your boss for the opt out – it’s currently law and has been in every version of AB 16.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:00 am
Karen, I doubt you’d give Emmerson credit for anything…if what you assert is true then why did the following words appear in your press release dated 3/13/07 after the first hearing
We are ecstatic about this victory for parental rights,” stated Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. “The members of the committee recognized that this legislation has several questionable provisions, including the fact that parental authority is ignored.”
Several members of the Assembly Health Committee questioned supporters and opponents about this highly controversial legislation. Assemblywoman Audra Strickland took a bold stance for parents by questioning the author about the lack of parental notification. It was obvious during Strickland’s cross examination that Hernandez did not have answers to the many important questions presented. When asked, Hernandez could not explain how parents may “opt-out” of this forced vaccination. Assemblymen Ted Gaines and Bob Huff also stated their concerns about the fact that parental notification and consent are missing from a law that would mandate a controversial STD vaccination. Huff stated that although the vaccine is a “great medical breakthrough”, parents must be aware that they can opt-out of the requirement if they oppose the vaccination.
After testifying against AB 16 in the committee hearing, CRI’s Legislative Liaison Meredith Turney commented, “We are thrilled that the bill has been placed on hold. The author has hopefully realized that this legislation tramples on parental rights. And we hope that the author will now amend the bill to make these controversial vaccines an option, not a mandate.”