Bill to curb teen indoor tanning debated

Lawmakers began debate Feb. 28 on a bill aimed at curbing indoor tanning among teenagers in Nebraska.

As introduced by Omaha Sen. Jeremy Nordquist, LB132 would prohibit tanning facilities in Nebraska from allowing people younger than 18 to use tanning equipment. The prohibition would apply to sun lamps, tanning booths and tanning beds.

Nordquist said he introduced the bill to lower the risk of skin cancer among young adults in Nebraska.

“This is an issue that truly is a matter of life and death and demands our attention and action,” he said.

Lawmakers have a history of protecting young people from the long-term consequences of dangerous behavior, Nordquist said. He noted that people younger than 18 are not allowed under state law to purchase handguns, alcohol or cigarettes and cannot legally consent to a tattoo.

A pending Health and Human Services Committee amendment would apply the prohibition only to minors younger than 16 and provide an exception for individuals with a physician’s order.

The amendment also would require tanning facilities to post a warning sign in a conspicuous location outlining the dangers of overexposure to ultraviolet radiation. An owner or operator of a tanning facility found to be in violation of the bill’s provisions would be subject to a civil penalty of $100.

The bill also would add a tanning facility owner to the state Board of Cosmetology.

Norfolk Sen. Jim Scheer offered an amendment to the committee amendment that would have replaced the physician’s order exception with a written note from a parent or legal guardian.

Scheer agreed that teenage tanning is a problem, but said the bill’s proposed solution was flawed in two ways. The amended bill would have no impact on older teens, he said, who are more likely to abuse indoor tanning. In addition, Scheer said, the state should not interfere with parental rights on this issue.

“When it comes right down to it, the bill does not address the problem,” he said. “If we’re going to try and address the problem, parents have to be involved.”

Bancroft Sen. Lydia Brasch supported the amendment, saying parents’ rights should be respected.

“The intent of LB132 is to protect our children, to protect them from harm,” Brasch said, “and I believe as a state … the best way we can protect our children is to enable their parents.”

Nordquist opposed the amendment. LB132 represents a compromise between the indoor tanning industry and the medical community, he said, and parental consent was considered during negotiations on the bill. The tanning industry does not want to be responsible for “policing” parental notes, he said, adding that young people likely would find a way to circumvent a parental note requirement.

The amendment failed on a vote of 18-18.

A second Scheer amendment to the committee amendment would exempt those younger than 16 from the bill’s provisions if accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Scheer said the amendment would provide a simple solution to the potential problem of teenagers forging their parent’s signature on a note.

“If [a parent] is not with them, don’t provide the services,” he said. “We don’t have to involve the medical community; we don’t have to waste their time.”

Campbell said the physician exception was included in the committee amendment because of testimony given during the hearing on LB132.

“We heard testimony that at times a physician is treating a particular skin condition and … may prescribe that someone use the [tanning] bed for a limited amount of time,” she said.

The Legislature adjourned for the day before taking action on the pending amendments.