Legislation that would have made it more difficult for Connecticut teenagers to use sunbeds with their parent’s consent was derailed last week when a state senator added an amendment to the bill that would have also required parental permission for abortions — a subject nobody in the legislature wanted to touch.

The addition killed the bill and infuriated its anti-sun proponents who cried foul, claiming that access to sunbeds and access to abortions are completely different issues.

“I have no idea why he did this,” Nancy Alderman, executive director of Environment and Human Health Inc., a North Haven-based advocacy group, told the Danbury News-Times of the amendment, introduced by state Sen. Michael McLachlan. “The World Health Organization says tanning beds are as dangerous as cigarettes.”

Of course, that’s NOT what the World Health Organization said. (UV exposure, like salted fish, sawdust and birth control pills, are considered carcinogens like cigarettes — but UV is the only carcinogen on the list that humans need in order to survive — meaning it is not most-accurately described as being in the same ‘category’ as tobacco). But it is the case that Alderman and bill proponents laid out in pitching their bill to lawmakers.

All of which begs the question: Most states do not require parental consent for a minor to terminate a pregnancy — a procedure that does present risks. The tanning community for years has supported constructive efforts to bolster parental consent standards currently in place in professional salons even where no such statute exists.

So how IS this issue any different?

To read the News-Times story click here.