Bill to ban body art/augmentn passes senate

[Simbi Laveau]

If this has been posted already, I missed it.

http://politicalblindspot.com/bill-to-ban-certain-tattoos-body-piercings-passes-senate/

But apparently the insanity to violate even more personal rights, now extends to body art, augmentation and piercings.

~~~~~~~~~

Senator Missy Irvin of Mountain View, Arkansas sponsored the bill entitled ”An Act To Limit Body Art Procedures”. She says that body modifications should be limited to “traditional” tattoos and piercings.

Her proposal was to essentially ban scarification procedures and dermal implants, as well as certain tattoos which remain yet to be defined as by the vague language of the bill she sponsored.

Almost unbelievably, this bill passed by a 26-4 vote. Following this, the bill was sent to the House, where it took on even more vague language. See the link above for the bill as it was eventually “compromised” on in the House. The scarification ban from the Senate version was removed, while considerable ambiguous language remained. The House “compromise” bans dermal implants unless performed by a doctor. This essentially, and in practice, outlaws the body modification.

As well, the bill’s vague, undefined language – even in the edited, House version – while editing out some of the original language on tattoos, fails to define a number of important issues raised by the Senate version, including what they mean by “cosmetic” tattoos as opposed to “non-cosmetic” tattoos.

If the government dictating what you can and can’t do with your body bothers you, SPREAD THE WORD!

Edited November 12, 2013 by Simbi Laveau

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Don't give Queensland ideas!

Because they already want to so this.

[George Ford]

"She says that body modifications should be limited to “traditional” tattoos and piercings. "

Well that is not so bad, traditional tattoos and piercings can be very extreme, as long as by traditional they mean tribal and there is no limit on cultural and religious styles. It mean that all parts of the body can still be tattooed and that all piercings can continue to be carried out.

[libstaK]

I believe implants should only be performed by a doctor but if the language is too vague then there will be infringement on personal freedoms for some of the more extensive piercings I've seen around.

[Taun]

First off... I deeply dislike tattoos and "extreme" piercings...

However, I support another person's decision to get (or not get) these as they see fit... IMO the only restrictions any govt should place on

these is in the lines of safety - not esthetics... making certain the procedures are sanitary, etc...

Also... there is nothing quite as dangerous as a vaguely written law...

[Lilly]

First off... I deeply dislike tattoos and "extreme" piercings...

However, I support another person's decision to get (or not get) these as they see fit... IMO the only restrictions any govt should place on

these is in the lines of safety - not esthetics... making certain the procedures are sanitary, etc...

Also... there is nothing quite as dangerous as a vaguely written law...

I agree with you completely. It might be (in my estimation) 'silly as all get out' to mess with your body in this manner, but it's not the government's job to dictate about cosmetic choices.

[Mikko-kun]

So this means officers now have a reason to see you naked if they suspect you might have tattoos?

[Simbi Laveau]

"She says that body modifications should be limited to “traditional” tattoos and piercings. "

Well that is not so bad, traditional tattoos and piercings can be very extreme, as long as by traditional they mean tribal and there is no limit on cultural and religious styles. It mean that all parts of the body can still be tattooed and that all piercings can continue to be carried out.

Well this is the thing. They are being very vague about defining what is "traditional"

This may mean only ear piercings are allowed?

Or MOM tattoos inside a heart.

This is a HUGE in figment on civil rights.

I do not like too many tats, or extreme body mods, but it's none of my business.

People also make a living doing these things, and some forms of fashion revolve around these things.

I don't like bad hair pieces and bad tweed suits, but I don't tell the Senate how to dress or do their comb over, and I wish they would be what's made illegal

[+joc]

Well this is the thing. They are being very vague about defining what is "traditional"

This may mean only ear piercings are allowed?

Or MOM tattoos inside a heart.

This is a HUGE in figment on civil rights.

I do not like too many tats, or extreme body mods, but it's none of my business.

People also make a living doing these things, and some forms of fashion revolve around these things.

I don't like bad hair pieces and bad tweed suits, but I don't tell the Senate how to dress or do their comb over, and I wish they would be what's made illegal

Hey everyone,

See how this Obamacare thing is going? (huh) Oh yeah. First they tell you what you must buy...then they tell you what you must NOT eat. Now they are telling you what you can and cannot say. Freedom of Speech? Right...that archaic idea from the nimrods of the past lovingly known by the prolatereat as the 'founding fathers'. Well...there is a new Father in town boys. Obama. He is your Father, He is your Mother, He is your sister and most of all, he is your BIG BROTHER!

I don't have any tats. I don't like them. I don't want one...but by god...if anyone tells me I can't have one...I'll go out tomorrow and get ten of them!

Word to the Government: Leave us the hell alone!

[Taun]

Hey everyone,

See how this Obamacare thing is going? (huh) Oh yeah. First they tell you what you must buy...then they tell you what you must NOT eat. Now they are telling you what you can and cannot say. Freedom of Speech? Right...that archaic idea from the nimrods of the past lovingly known by the prolatereat as the 'founding fathers'. Well...there is a new Father in town boys. Obama. He is your Father, He is your Mother, He is your sister and most of all, he is your BIG BROTHER!

I don't have any tats. I don't like them. I don't want one...but by god...if anyone tells me I can't have one...I'll go out tomorrow and get ten of them!

Word to the Government: Leave us the hell alone!

I can't actually read the article (it's blocked here at work) but unless it says otherwise, this really has very little to do with Obamacare... I am by no means a supporter of Mr Obama, or his policies - and I strongly distrust

"Obamacare"... but Obamacare is not the problem here...

[SHaYap]

Last I heard they're planning to have licenses issued for 'approved tattoos and piercings' for a small fee ... that's what some ink forums are debating anyway ...

[rashore]

Hrm... I opened the PDF that is with the article. It kind of only changes a bit of definition, looks like it adds in some language- though it's titled limiting body art, it didn't actually say anything about limitations. Being dissatisfied with that, I looked up SB 387. And there's more than tat stuff in it, there's also things that apply to cosmetic procedures- like facial peels or skin lightening at dermatologists offices. There are prohibitions listed, but it's more along the lines of can't tat drunk people or give tats in nail salons.

I might be mistaken in this, but looking at the two pieces, it kind of looks like the piece in the article is amending who is performing what body art rather than limiting body art itself. Adding subdermal and scarring to the list, and limiting it to what artists can perform those procedures.

[Rafterman]

So I can still get my Double Ought Prince Albert done?

[Dark_Grey]

Hrm... I opened the PDF that is with the article. It kind of only changes a bit of definition, looks like it adds in some language- though it's titled limiting body art, it didn't actually say anything about limitations. Being dissatisfied with that, I looked up SB 387. And there's more than tat stuff in it, there's also things that apply to cosmetic procedures- like facial peels or skin lightening at dermatologists offices. There are prohibitions listed, but it's more along the lines of can't tat drunk people or give tats in nail salons.

I might be mistaken in this, but looking at the two pieces, it kind of looks like the piece in the article is amending who is performing what body art rather than limiting body art itself. Adding subdermal and scarring to the list, and limiting it to what artists can perform those procedures.

Ah, ok. That sounds much more reasonable. I was picturing a bunch of old conservative Christians in a big room raising their hands when the phrase "ban tattoos" is spoken by the presenter.

[Simbi Laveau]

So I can still get my Double Ought Prince Albert done?

Do it quick!

[Simbi Laveau]

Ah, ok. That sounds much more reasonable. I was picturing a bunch of old conservative Christians in a big room raising their hands when the phrase "ban tattoos" is spoken by the presenter.

I still don't trust a bunch of senators with too much time on their hands, and bad comb overs.

[George Ford]

Hrm... I opened the PDF that is with the article. It kind of only changes a bit of definition, looks like it adds in some language- though it's titled limiting body art, it didn't actually say anything about limitations. Being dissatisfied with that, I looked up SB 387. And there's more than tat stuff in it, there's also things that apply to cosmetic procedures- like facial peels or skin lightening at dermatologists offices. There are prohibitions listed, but it's more along the lines of can't tat drunk people or give tats in nail salons.

I might be mistaken in this, but looking at the two pieces, it kind of looks like the piece in the article is amending who is performing what body art rather than limiting body art itself. Adding subdermal and scarring to the list, and limiting it to what artists can perform those procedures.

Hmmm, I got 4 of my tattoos done whilst drunk. ALTHOUGH I did go down and choose 3 of them whilst sober and warned them I didn't like pain so wanted a couple of drinks to take the edge off. They were fine with it and 2 of them warned me that I'd bleed more. At one of the places though I was drunk and the tattooist didn't care, it was a hand tattoo, seemed a clean enough place and he did show me the clean needle coming out of a sterile sealed bag.. Still, if I could go back in time I'd have probably made a different choice.

[Sweetpumper]

It's only a matter of time before they start telling you what bumper stickers you can have on your car.

[Dark_Grey]

It's only a matter of time before they start telling you what bumper stickers you can have on your car.

Do you know why I pulled you over? Do you know what party you are supporting by having that sticker on your car?

[aztek]

that is what they spent their time and our taxes on, not to fix country but to enact useless laws.

[Wickian]

I know there's lot of people how have some pretty invasive body work done by specialized places. Since they aren't medical doctors they aren't legally allowed to numb the areas or give them pain killers, so all the customers have to take the pain of all of the implants.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I still don't trust a bunch of senators with too much time on their hands, and bad comb overs.

OFFENSIVE BODY MODIFICATION!!!

[F3SS]

I can't actually read the article (it's blocked here at work) but unless it says otherwise, this really has very little to do with Obamacare... I am by no means a supporter of Mr Obama, or his policies - and I strongly distrust

"Obamacare"... but Obamacare is not the problem here...

I disagree. Obamacare was the first association I came up after reading the op. Obamacare is very very very much about telling me what I can and can't do with my body. On second thought, it is certainly about making me pay enormous sums of money for what I do or don't choose to do with my body. The ideas aren't far apart.

Next, what is the real intent here? Plain old government control of its subjects bodies? Oh, I know. Sometimes people get infected from these things usually do to a poor choice of locale. Since these people get infections and they don't always have insurance what better way to look out for societies wallets then curbing 'unnecessary' medical costs. I guess. I don't know. What I do know is that while this sounds like the desires of a Puritan religious ultra-conservative I can't help but think it sounds so much more like liberalism which always involves intruding on the privacy and liberty of personal choices. I'm going to go back to the op now and see which is more likely.

[F3SS]

She appears to be a republican so I'm guessing far to the right with a bunch of big government mixed party backers all to happy to tell US how to live.

Edited November 12, 2013 by F3SS

[spartan max2]

Hrm... I opened the PDF that is with the article. It kind of only changes a bit of definition, looks like it adds in some language- though it's titled limiting body art, it didn't actually say anything about limitations. Being dissatisfied with that, I looked up SB 387. And there's more than tat stuff in it, there's also things that apply to cosmetic procedures- like facial peels or skin lightening at dermatologists offices. There are prohibitions listed, but it's more along the lines of can't tat drunk people or give tats in nail salons.

I might be mistaken in this, but looking at the two pieces, it kind of looks like the piece in the article is amending who is performing what body art rather than limiting body art itself. Adding subdermal and scarring to the list, and limiting it to what artists can perform those procedures.

Just a shout out to the people like you who do the reaserch for the majority of us who are normally too lazy to read past the headlines.

Thank you

Edited November 12, 2013 by spartan max2