HB+1310+Texas+Legislature+81st+Session

HB 1310: Restricting indoor tanning of minors.

 Representative [|Burt Solomons] introduced and filled HB 1310 on February 17, 2009 to stricken the laws of tanning in a tanning salon for minors. Solomons, the primary Arthur believes that tanning is one of the main causes of skin cancer for minors and wants to do something to lower the rates of minors diagnosed with skin cancer. Currently children under the age of thirteen need a doctor’s note to tan and have their parent present while they tan. Teens at the ages of thirteen to eighteen have to have parental permission to tan. If they are younger than the age of sixteen they need a parent or legal guardian present while the teen is tanning.

The HB 1310 as filed would have made it mandatory for teens under the age of eighteen to have a doctor’s note to be able to tan however, luckily to the teens who love to tan that is not the case anymore. Instead this bill will not allow any teens under sixteen-and-one-half years old to tan at a tanning salon. If the teen is younger than the age of eighteen but older than sixteen-and-one-half years old the minor will need a legal guardian to provide a written consent in person at the facility they wish to tan. Both the teen and the legal guardian are required to read and sign an advisory statement stating all of the dangers and risk of indoor as well as outdoor tanning and will also agree to wear protective eye wear at all times. They both will also be informed of the possibility of skin cancer, eye damages and other health risks like suppressing the immune system and also the chances of melanoma.

As for the tanning facilities, they are required to save all of the costumer’s records until three years after the customers last time to tan. These records must consist of: date and time of the costumers last use of the tanning device, the length of time the tanning device was used, any injury or illness from using the tanning devices, any form of parent or legal guardians written consent that is if they needed it, whether or not the costumer has family history of skin cancer, their skin type and how fast they tan or how easy do they burn.

This bill has almost met all of its stages; it is just now waiting on the Governor to sign it. These stages include: Bill filled by Burt Solomons on 02-17-09 Bill reported Out of House Committee on Public Health with 8 ayes, 1 nays and 2 absent on 03-31-09 Bill voted on by House and passed on 04-22-09 Bill reported Out of Senate Committee on Heath and Human Services with 8 ayes, 0 nays with only one absent on 05-08-09 Bill voted on by senate and passed After the Governor signs this bill it will then become a new law.

There are people for and against this law. Why would anyone be opposed to saving people's lives and even saving people's money? You would be surprised what people think is more important. When voted on by the Public Health committee ayes won by a 8 to 1 with 2 people absent. Witnesses for this law that testified: Mark Clanton, MD, with American Cancer Society, Lee Ann Alexander, Renee Mauzy and Sharon Raimer as "self's" and people that were registered but did not testify were: Jaime Capelo, Patients FIRST Coalition, Marisa Finley with Scott and White Center for Health Care Policy, James Gray with American Cancer Society. People against were William Grant with Indoor Tanning Association and Diane Lucas with Palm Beach Tan and Indoor Tanning Association. So of course the people against this law are going to be people in the tanning industry.

Supporters say there is no sufficient medical justification for the need of a sixteen year old to be using an indoor tanning device and younger children are at a higher risk of developing skin cancer. Another says since teens can drive by sixteen and a half years old then they should be responsible enough to understand the dangers of tanning. One suggests that the U.S Department of Health and Human Services considers UV radiation to be carcinogen, and since minors under eight-teen cannot buy cigarette why should they be able to tan? Tanning is also considered addictive because it causes the body to release endorphins. People for this bill also say a good thing about this soon to be law is that it will provide informative information for the parents and teen to read before they sign consent. This way the parent reads over the dangers and risks when using indoor and outdoor tanning and they know what they are putting their child in dangers of. They will read about your risk of melanoma which is the form of cancer that has the highest mortality rate and they will also read about how UV radiation can also damage the eyes, age skin and suppress the immune system. These are clearly all good points and it will be hard for opponents to overrule supporters.

Opponents say HB 1310 should not impose anymore limits on minors because the tanning industry already has sufficient restrictions by the state and federal government and this bill will not improve public health. Another Opponent say that parents should have the final say whether or not their child should tan or not and that HB 1310 would be taking away parents rights concerning their children’s health and young children rarely tan as is is. Some say HB 1310 will just be unnecessarily taking away business from many small business owners and with our economy now that will just hurt it. Finally there is one opponent that suggest that there are some skin conditions such as psoriasis or eczema for which the doctor would prescribe light treatment, however such a procedure is usually done in a dermatologist office. Clearly there are not as many good points from the opponents than the supporters. The bill will be passed and will take effect September 1, 2009.