A bill that appeared to be sailing its way to approval in the Connecticut legislature got pulled because one lawmaker tacked a parental consent for abortion amendment onto it.
Via the News Times:
A bill that would have required parental approval to allow young teenagers go to a tanning parlor was torpedoed at the last minute by a amendment sponsored by state Sen. Michael McLachlan, R-Danbury, that required parental permission for abortions.
Rather than have an abortion debate in the closing days of the legislative session, the tanning bill died in the Senate without a vote.
That infuriated supporters of the tanning bill, who say it might have done something worthwhile -- reduce the number of young people who may develop skin cancer.
But the state senator said he thinks the issues "have a lot in common.
"If you can have parental consent for minors for ear-piercing or tanning, why shouldn't you have parental consent for minors for abortions?'' he said Monday.
So since young girls can give birth without parental permission, would they then argue that if teens want to have a tan they can just go sit out in the sun?