Posts tagged legislation

Point 73: Ohio Legislation Update – Patrick McCarthy

Comments Off on Point 73: Ohio Legislation Update – Patrick McCarthy read Issue 73, Legislation

Patrick McCarthy*
Piercology, Inc., Body Art Solutions

For the last three years, the state of Ohio has been rewriting its body art Rules and Regulations. Beginning in 2013, a number of body modification professionals, health inspectors, medical professionals, legal professionals, Ohio Department of Professional Personnel and more, set out with the purpose of reworking the outdated rules that had been put in place 18 years ago. The Association of Body Art Professionals was formed for the state of Ohio to take on this task. The association had piercers and tattoo artists from the four corners of the state, many of which were fellow APP Members.

Many people don’t realize that when you are dealing with the government and government agencies, you are dealing with two separate things: rules and regulations, and laws. These are two totally different animals. Laws are far more difficult to change and are usually written to be intentionally vague. Revisions or additions to laws must go through the House and Senate in the state and must be signed by the governor. Rules and regulations go into great detail and are usually written by a committee. Laws are set for the state level. However, most states allow local health departments and municipalities to go above the state’s laws in the rules and regulation procedures. For this reason, it is so important to understand what your local municipality requires, because many people, including public officials, don’t realize the significant difference in laws and rules and regulations. We have the issue of travelling artists being allowed to practice their craft in different states. It is like this in most states, however, some states do things a little differently. So make sure you understand how things work in your state, and any states that you may visit while working.

Going back 18 years, Ohio had some of the best body art laws in the nation, with matching rules and regulations. Because of this, many states set up their laws similarly to Ohio. I was fortunate enough to be involved in writing the laws way back then, and this made it a little easier to get involved in the changes this time. Due to the fact that they were previously so well written, the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) pretty much left the rules and regulations alone until 2 years ago. Unfortunately, due to the lack of evolution, the rules and regulations had become outdated.

Overhauling the antiquated laws and rules and regulations to reflect the incredible amount of advancement in our industry over that 18 year period was no easy task. Our committee met, on average, once or twice a month, for nine months going over all of the changes that needed to take place. During these meetings, we were able to address many changes that had occurred in our industry.

When originally written, it was stated that studios had to sterilize their own tools. In response to the evolution of pre-sterilized, disposable tools, we added the “Pre-Sterile” law, allowing artists in this state to use presterilized items. Up until this point, an artist was breaking the law if they used pre-sterilized tools. Most states have requirements that rules and regulations be looked at every few years so things like this don’t happen. But, as we all know, if things are working well they never get changed. So I urge each of you to make sure your state stays current with the progress happening in our industry.

The rules and regulations were written with extensive depth and specifications regarding things like quality of jewelry, detailed instruction on how to sterilize instruments, aseptic techniques for set-up and teardown, and even how documentation had to be kept. To ensure that the health inspectors in the state of Ohio were properly trained on the new changes that had taken place, we held back the roll out of the new rules and regulations for six months and offered training to them regarding all of the changes. These training classes were not only open to health inspectors, but also to people in the body art industry, free of charge. This was done so that they could learn how the changes in rules and regulations would affect their studios and to help them understand what changes needed to be implemented.

We taught ten classes throughout the state over a 6 week period with over three hundred health inspectors in attendance. These classes went into great detail regarding instruction for inspectors. We covered topics such as correct procedures for disinfecting and sterilizing, proper aseptic technique for both tattooing and piercing, what to look for in an exposure control plan, and what works and doesn’t work regarding aftercare. Information on industry standards tats was also discussed. We stressed the importance of inspectors observing procedures within the studios to ensure that artists know what they are doing.

The classes were quite successful and the participants enjoyed the opportunity to be in an interactive environment where they could ask questions. These were the first classes that had been offered to them strictly covering body art in the state of Ohio. We learned that making comparisons to the food industry allowed the inspectors to better comprehend the information being taught from that industry to ours. We were asked to record a final class session in a sound studio using the PowerPoint presentation. This prerecorded session is now used for training new inspectors. We were also invited to teach classes for inspectors at four conferences across the state.

I have maintained a great working relationship with ODH over the last 19 years of working with them. It is important to remember a few things when building and maintaining a working relationship with health departments and inspectors. As much as you may not like it, we are in their world, so dress accordingly. One of the biggest mistakes I’ve seen over the years, and why many in our industry don’t have a working relationship with their public departments, is the simple fact that they don’t dress up. Don’t expect to be seen as a professional if you show up to a meeting dressed in jeans and a tshirt. Also, don’t talk down to them; treat them as a peer. Health inspectors are just there to do their job and keep the public safe, so if they don’t understand everything in our profession, take the time to educate them. I think you will find that most inspectors welcome any knowledge you can offer them.

Most states have conferences to teach inspectors, and they are always looking for new classes. So feel free to ask your health departments if you might be able to help out and teach a class for them.

*Editor’s Note: Pat was also the APP’s first elected president.

Point #70: When is Piercing Mutilation? – Paul King

3 Comments read International, Issue 70, Legislation, Medical, News

PKing photo for conference 2011By Paul King
APP Treasurer

Considering Female Genital Piercing as “Female Genital Mutilation” in the United Kingdom

The Current UK Situation

On March 19, 2015, the London Evening Standard published Martin Bentham’s article online, “Women with Vagina Piercings to be Classed as FGM.”[1] The tabloid article is claiming that the United Kingdom’s (UK) Department of Health is requiring that healthcare professionals report known incidences of female genital piercing as “female genital mutilation.” This article was and is still being widely shared in social media and has proliferated through various copycat online articles through sites such as BBC and Huffington Post, etc.[2] The response has been an incredulous outcry from UK piercers,  other piercers worldwide, piercing enthusiasts, and even UK nurses.[3]

In this article, I will outline some pertinent history on the topic of “Female Genital Mutilation,” particularly in the UK and how it relates to female genital piercing; explain some key legal definitions and concepts; illuminate legal and ethical concerns; and suggest options for immediate responses and longer range strategies potentially affecting the Association of Professional Piercers (APP), UK piercers, global body altering industries, and other body modification communities.

A Brief Overview of “Female Genital Mutilation

To some degree, most of us have an idea of what “female genital mutilation” is and what it is not. However, “Female Genital Mutilation” (“FGM”) is a very complex subject containing passionate and sometimes conflicting beliefs. Within individuals as well as between groups, “Female Genital Mutilation” includes diverse and sometimes contradictory understandings of “Human Rights,” patriarchy, feminism(s), xenophobia, Islamophobia, sexism, racism, colonialism, Western ideology, economics, etc. I have studied this subject intensely for several years; I  am still learning and therefore I make few claims.[4] Most of the complexities of “FGM” are outside the scope of this article.

Throughout this paper, I use “FGM” and “female genital mutilation” in quotations. I believe the phrase and acronym are popularly recognized so I perpetuate their usage, however, with great ambivalence. I prefer and generally use “female genital alteration,” (“FGA”), or even more neutral, “genital alteration.”[5] These are less biased and less reductive ways to talk about diverse procedures of the genitals that contain debated and complicated social meanings and motivations, as well as a wide range of psychological and physical outcomes. Even the term “female genital piercing” carries problems of vagueness, which leads to confusion. As any professional and experienced piercer can tell you, not all piercings are the same; a “clit piercing” is not a “clitoral hood piercing.”[6]

The language and visual images used by the programs to eradicate “FGM” are so compelling and horrifying for the majority of Westerners that it becomes unimaginable to call into question data, rhetoric, or effects of this authoritative campaign.[7] Although the United Nations (UN) agencies including the World Health Organization (WHO) have made four separate categories to differentiate the “FGM” practices, their literature describes all “FGM” practices as having the exact same physical and emotional traumas. As a result, the most invasive infibulation with clitoral excision carries the same description of trauma as the most benign prick.[8] The UN et al. understands what they’re doing, they’re not looking for compromise; they are seeking complete eradication of all practices within one generation.[9] Setting aside further ethical considerations of UN et al.’s campaign for the eradication of “FGM,” we will only address the repercussions from the overreaching definition of “Type IV female genital mutilation.”

Illustrations by Jennifer Klepacki from The Piercing Bible: The Definitive Guide to Safe Body Piercing by Elayne Angel www.piercingbible.com
Illustrations by Jennifer Klepacki from The Piercing Bible: The Definitive
Guide to Safe Body Piercing by Elayne Angel www.piercingbible.com

The legal definitions of “FGM” includes: “Type IV is a category that subsumes all other harmful, or potentially harmful, practices that are performed on the genitalia of girls and women.”[10] The UN and therefore the UK provide no qualitative or quantitative scale for “harm.” A rash, abrasion, puncture, burn, and/or contusion, etc., any injury that is a result of a deliberate action, no matter how temporary or permanent is technically “harm.”[11] The UN/WHO’s own documents acknowledge their definitional language for “female genital mutilation” was deliberately broad to close any potential legal “loopholes” for the practices they were trying to target.[12] 

The UN/WHO have identified “female genital mutilation” as occurring in ethnic groups in or immigrated from 28 African countries as well as Iraq, Israel, Oman, United Arab Emirates, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan. I would assert that the UN/WHO never intended or considered for their definitions to include Western “normal” personal grooming practices on adult female bodies that frequently result in injuries. The UN/WHO’s stance on Western women altering their genitalia for aesthetics using cosmetic surgical procedures was intentionally left ambiguous.[13] To further complicate the ethics in this issue, other  UN policies do not consider “traditional” genital modifications of the male body as “mutilation,” in fact, the UN agencies UNAIDS and WHO, fund and promote medicalized male genital alteration in the same African communities in which they seek to eradicate female genital alteration.[14]

Important History Relevant to the UK

The trending tabloid articles take out of context an issue with a long history. For perspective, Ioffer some background on the development of the UK’s “FGM”campaign. This historical timeline is by no means exhaustive:

In 1985, the UK passed its first regulation on the prohibition of mutilating female genitalia. “Mutilation” is never defined.[15]

In 1987, UK authorities conducted “Operation Spanner.” This investigation targeted adult male homosexuals engaged in consensual BDSM.[16] Among the arrested was one of the UK’s most prominent and historically important professional body piercers, Alan Oversby, a.k.a. “Mr. Sebastian.” His criminal activity included, “performing a [Prince Albert] piercing for the purposes of sexual pleasure….”[17] All defendants pled guilty and lost all appeals, both in the UK and EU courts.[18] For this article, the crucial point to understand is that UK law will disregard adult consent to criminally convict a body piercer. In the Spanner Case, guilt was determined on the subjective ideas of “harm.” Current understandings are that one can pierce at least male genitals for adornment, but not for sexual gratification.[19]

In 2003, the UK replaced its first anti-“FGM” law of 1985, with the “Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003,” but they still did not clearly defined “mutilation.” In addition, the act refers to “child abuse” and the protection of “girls” throughout the document, then concludes under the definitions section 6 (1), “Girl includes woman.”[20] Obviously, this muddles the understanding of what constitutes “child,” “girl,” “child abuse” as well as a consenting (female) adult.[21] 

In 2008, The United Nations (UN) and the World Health Agency (WHO) released an UN inter-agency seminal work on the subject of “FGM.”[22] This document contains their standpoint on the issue, definitions, and candid rationale for their language choices. This is the document that most national governments refer to when considering definitions and implementing their own programs. It is the source document from which the National Health Services (NHS) and the Information Standards Board’s program ISB 1600 draw their global statistics, UK statistical projections, and legal definitions.[23] 

UN et al.’s Type IV female genital mutilation is defined as “All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example pricking, piercing, incising, scraping, and cauterization.” This is where Western-style female genital piercing would be classed. The term “Medical” includes any procedure not necessary for physical and psychological health. Cultural and religious necessities are explicitly excluded as medically necessary. The UN et al. also specifically includes “stretching” and “harmful substances.” It also states “herbs” as well as implying chemical bleaches, depilatory creams, hot waxes, etc. when they cause any injury fall into this category.[24] The UN explains that they use such broad language to “close loopholes” in their campaign against “FGM.”[25] Of course the problem of this slippery slope argument is that they have included ANYTHING that causes ANY degree of injury to the female genitalia.  This includes female genital body piercing and potentially the reinsertion or stretching of a female genital piercing.[26] Looking through medical reports for the US and Europe reveals thousands of female genital injuries, annually. Research reveals that most of these emergency room visits and treatments are for procedures we would never label “mutilation”such as “personal grooming” with razors, scissors, and clippers; skin bleaching; electrolysis; “Brazilian” waxing; pubic hair dyeing; and pubic hair removal with lasers or depilatory creams; etc.[27] Presented this way, Type IV’s all inclusiveness may seem absurd. However, the UN categories were not intended to understand and document “our” bodies and practices; this descriptive system was intended to scrutinize “their” bodies and practices. For the law to make any sense, the allegation of “female genital mutilation” must be kept in context with the bodies being targeted as “FGM-affect.”

        

The 2013 UK Intercollegiate FGM report instructs authorities, including healthcare professionals, on how to identify, record, and report “FGM.”[28] This includes explanations for “FGM-affected” immigrant communities from the previously mentioned UN/WHO listed countries. The UK draws from this list for their statistics of probable “FGM” risk in the UK, since authorities admit there had been no prosecutions and little actual evidence to support concerns of widespread “female genital mutilation.”[29]

On April 1, 2014, the Information Standards Board released directive ISB 1610. This document detailed information on standardized codes and procedures for healthcare workers to report incidences of “female genital mutilation” in the UK. This guide includes UN/WHO definitions for Type I, II, and III. However, Type IV, which covers anything else, now includes “unknown” as ISB Type 9. “Type 9” mutilation means some sort of injury and/or scarring has occurred but it can’t be identified or there isn’t a clear ISB code for it. Type 9 is how “piercing” should be categorized.[30]

In July 2014, the Department of Health issued “Recording FGM in the Patient Healthcare Record” reminding healthcare providers, particularly General Practitioners, that ISB 1610 requires mandatory reporting of “FGM” byall healthcare staff effective Sept. 1, 2014. The Department of Health has been collecting and reporting this data since then.[31]

In Jan 2015, the Secretary of State and Parliament released a comprehensive report, in response to a July 2014 summit, requesting greater cooperation between the departments of law enforcement, education, and healthcare to escalate the campaign against FGM in the UK.[32]

Female Genital diagram TexOn March 10, 2015, the House of Commons released a report titled, “Female Mutilation: Follow Up.” The Home Affairs Committee demanded that laws be clarified to include all UK female genital cosmetic surgeries on the grounds that it is hypocritical to specifically target the eradication of female genital procedures of “FGM” -identified communities both located inside and outside the UK, while allowing the rest of UK females to modify their genitals.[33] This report is likely the impetus for the Evening Standard’s article of March 17, 2015.

On March 17, 2015, The London Evening Standard’s website posted the article “Women with Vagina Piercings to be Classed as FGM.” This article appears to have ignited the current public awareness that female genital piercing could be, and perhaps have been, categorized as “female genital mutilation.” Requests have been made of the author and the paper to see if they have knowledge of any evidence that the government specifically addresses Western-style practices of female genital piercing, so far, without reply. Most likely, the author was drawing from previous documents that generally include “piercing” as a standard example of the UN Type IV / ISB Type 9 “FGM.”[34]

Concluding Thoughts

At the time of this writing, I have no evidence that UK authorities would interpret the piercing of a white indigenous adult female’s genitals for adornment as “female genital mutilation.” The protection of the genitals of all minors under the age of 16 is already enforced by strict regulations. The UK has cultural views and therefore legal guidelines on young persons that differ from many states in the US. In the UK, persons 16 and older can consent to sex and medical treatments, without the necessity of parental consent.[35]Although, internationally, there exists a widely held professional ethical standard that only persons considered adults, at the “age of majority,” should have their genitals pierced. However, if a UK body piercer performed a female genital piercing on an adult woman from a UN/WHO/UK recognized “FGM-affected community” the legal outcome gets trickier to predict.[36] If the piercing were discovered by a healthcare provider, the situation would create an ethical dilemma for the healthcare worker, compelled by law to report any alterations. If the reported incident were investigated by law enforcement, it could lead to criminal prosecution of the body piercer, counter staff, shop owner, and/or a friend(s) that accompanied the piercing client (anyone that “aids, abets, [counsels] or procures”) for violation of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 carrying a penalty of a fine with up to 14 years imprisonment.[37] To mitigate risk, a UK piercer could refuse to pierce female genitalia, while continuing to pierce male genitalia. As another option, UK piercers could sort clients by using the same geographical criteria as the National Health Services and law enforcement; however, in practice, I doubt denying services based on country of origin would go  over well. It would probably lead to accusations of xenophobia and racism.

Therein lies the crux of an ethical dilemma. Most people will not believe that every injury of the female genitals is “mutilation.” “Female genital mutilation” is understood to only happen in “FGM-affected communities.” It’s common sense that Janet Jackson’s, Christina Aguilera’s, or Lady Gaga’s pierced genitalia is not “female genital mutilation,” and as such the definitions of and rules for “female genital mutilation” should not apply.[38] However, “common sense” is not universal; it is influenced by life experience, education, class, economics, religion, ethnicity, sex, gender, country of origin, etc. Healthcare workers, police, legislators, and the public operate under this blind bias.[39] Few want to admit that they see and treat others differently, that is because it directly clashes with other deeply held Western values of tolerance, decency, and fairness.

In March 2015, the UK Home Affairs Committee recognized the “double standard” of pressuring other communities to stop their “mutilation” practices while allowing UK females to have genital cosmetic surgeries. They have appealed to parliament to amend the 2003 law in order to criminalize female genital cosmetic surgery.[40] This action will likely meet allegations of patriarchy and sexism. Many Westerners fail to realize that our understandings of medicine and science (such as “necessary” or “not necessary”) as well as violence, mutilation, harm, pain, etc. are always shaped by culture. Ones most deeply held religious and moral beliefs, including notions of what is “right” or “wrong” are shaped by the culture one is born into. The dominant culture within any particular nation is in a more powerful position to propagate its beliefs.

The UK government and anti-“FGM” organizations genuinely desire to protect immigrant women and their daughters. Most Westerners, this author included, would find it repugnant to defend the most commonly told story of a practice that physically restrains a very young girl crying against her will, to have her clitoris cut out and her vagina sewn shut, a procedure that endangers her life, sexual pleasure, and ability to procreate. However, the anti-“FGM” campaigners risk weakening their public support when they overreach their claims to consider all practices regardless of invasiveness, all females regardless of age, and all physical and psychological consequences regardless of the wide range of experiences and perceptions, as the same. Once the UN et al. labels a community as practicing “FGM,” then at the international level, those community adult women’s legal “rights” to consent to any genital alteration are stripped away.[41] 

I’m not saying we should do nothing for individuals that want to be helped, or that we should not impose policies to protect minors, particularly in our own countries, but I do believe definitions and regulations that could specifically deny a female adult the choice to consent or not to consent to altering her genitals, whether by: piercing the genital tissue; or shaving, trimming, bleaching, dyeing, lasering, or waxing the pubic hair; or surgically altering the appearance, etc., violate current commonly-held notions of sexual equality and fairness. 

So what can be done in the UK?  Ultimately, the course of action is best decided by the piercers and the women of the UK, although international piercing communities should assist when asked. Currently, an e-petition is circulating that UK citizens can sign requesting that the government legally recognizes female genital piercing is not mutilation.[42] UK citizens can write and call their elected officials. They can email responses to all names and department heads associated with the anti-”FGM” regulations.Everyone can email news agencies that spread the story. At its source, this is an international issue that will keep occurring as a result of the definitions and policies of United Nations and the World Health Organization. Since the medical field and personal grooming industries may be affected, alliances should be sought. Body piercing communities and their allies should simultaneously apply pressure for legislative changes at both the local as well as the international levels.

As I conclude this article, I am reminded of the small group of piercers that came together in 1994, to stand up against a misguided California state bill that was going to unnecessarily burden our industry. The Association of Professional Piercers was born from this handful of determined activists. Twenty years later, the APP has educated thousands of piercers and has helped shaped numerous city, county, state/province, and national regulations around the world. My concerns about this current issue in the UK are somewhat eased by the excitement of what the future may hold with this opportunity for the UK piercing community to unite behind a common cause.

Author’s note: This article was written on a very tight deadline. I am filled with deep gratitude for Nici Holmes, Kendra Jane, Marina Pecorino, and Elayne Angel for their incredible assistance during this process, filled with last-minute questions and requests.

 

The Association of Professional Piercers’ Official Response on the UK Categorization of “Piercing” as “Female Genital Mutilation.”

The Association of Professional Piercers does not consider elective female genital piercing to be mutilation or “Female Genital Mutilation” (“FGM”). We support the right for all adults to pierce their bodies in a safe, informed, and consensual manner when performed by a qualified practitioner under appropriate asepsis.

We are urging UK government officials to readdress the language of the current laws and regulations to clarify the confusion arising from the current definitions, including definitional section 6 (1) of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, in which “Girl includes woman,” as well as any “FGM” regulations that include the term “pierce,” such as ISB 1610 of 2014. We are available to assist in this process.

The Association of Professional Piercers is an international non-profit organization dedicated to the dissemination of vital health and safety information about body piercing to piercers, health care professionals, legislators, and the general public. Socially and legislatively, body piercing is situated within the greater body modification community. As a result, we recognize that our role extends beyond the discipline of body piercing. Our position on body art practices such as tattooing, cosmetic tattooing, branding, scarification, suspension, and other forms of body modification is as follows:

We support the right for all adults to adorn or modify their bodies in a safe, informed, and consensual manner when performed by a qualified practitioner under appropriate asepsis. While the APP does not directly regulate, perform outreach, or offer procedural guidelines on practices other than body piercing, we support health and safety organizations that do. Our most fundamental principles as expressed in our environmental criteria and ethical standards extend to the greater body modification community and its practices.

 

Bibliography

  1. Ahmadu, Fuambai S. and Richard A. Shweder. “Disputing the myth of the sexual dysfunction of circumcised women: An interview with Fuambai S. Ahmadu by Richard A. Shweder.” Anthropology Today, 25 (2009): 14–17.
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8322.2009.00699.x
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics. “Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice by the Committee on Bioethics.”Pediatrics 95, no. 2, (1995): 314-317.
    http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/AAP/
  3. Bibbings, Lois, and Peter Alldridge. “Sexual Expression, Body Alteration, and the Defence of Consent.”Journal of Law and Society 20,no. 3 (1993): 356-370. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1410312
  4. Bjerring, Peter, Henrik Egekvist, and Thomas Blake. “Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Three Different Depilatory Methods.”Skin Research and Technology4, no. 4 (1998): 196-199. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0846.1998.tb00110.x
  5. Brunn Poulse, Pia, and Maria Strandesen. “Survey and Occurrence of PPD, PTD and Other Allergenic Hair Dye Substances in Hair Dyes.” The Danish Environmental Protection Agency. 2013.
    http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2013/02/978-87-92903-92-1.pdf
  6. Christoffersen-Deb, Astrid. “’Taming Tradition’: Medicalized Female Genital Practices in Western Kenya.”Medical Anthropology Quarterly 19, no. 4 (2005): 402-418. http://www.jstor.og/stable/3655495.
  7. Coleman, Doraine L. “The Seattle Compromise: Multicultural Sensitivity and Americanization.” Duke Law Journal 47, no. 4 (1998): 717-783. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372912
  8. Darby, Robert, and J. Steven Svoboda. “A Rose by Any Other Name?: Rethinking the
  9. Similarities and Differences between Male and Female Genital Cutting.”Medical Anthropology Quarterly 21, no. 3 (2007): 301-323.
    DOI: 10.1525/MAQ.2007.21.3.301.
  10. Delanty, Gerard. “Habermas and Occidental Rationalism: The Politics of Identity, Social Learning, and the Cultural Limits of Moral Universalism.”Sociology Theory 15, no. 1 (1997): 30-59.
    http://www.jstor.org/stable/202134
  11. Eyal, Nir. “Informed Consent.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,edited by Edward N. Zalta  (Fall 2012 Edition).
    http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/informed-consent/    .
  12. Filc, Dani. “The Medical Text: between Biomedicine and Hegemony.”Social Science & Medicine 59, (2004).
    DOI:10.1016/j.socsimed.2004.01.003
  13. Glass, Allison S., Herman S. Bagga, Gregory E. Tasian, Patrick B. Fisher, Charles E. McCulloch, Sarah D. Baschko, Jack W. McAninch, and Benjamin N. Breyer. “Pubic Hair Grooming Injuries Presenting to US Emergency Departments.”Urology 80, no. 6 (2012): 1187-1191.
    DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.08.025.
  14. Hastings Center. “Seven Things You Should Know About Female Genital Surgeries in Africa.”Hasting Center Report 42, no. 6 (2012): 19-27.
    DOI: 10.1002/hast.81
  15. Herbenick, Debby, Venessa Schick, Michael Reece, Stephanie A. Sanders, and J. Dennis Fortenberry. “Pubic Hair Removal among Women in the United States; Prevalence, Methods, and Characteristics.”Journal of Sexual Medicine 7, no. 10 (2010): 3322-30.
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.01935.x
  16. Johnsdotter, Sara, and Birgitta Essén. “Genitals and Ethnicity: the Politics of Genital Modifications.”Reproductive Health Matters Journal 18, no. 35 (2010): 29-37. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20541081
  17. Kelly, Brenda, and Charles Foster. “Should Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery and Genital Piercing Be Regarded Ethically and Legally as Female Genital Mutilation?”International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (BJOG). 2012.
    DOI: 10.1111/j/1471-0528.2011.03260.x
  18. King, Paul R. “Investigations of Female Genital Alteration in the United States Within Nonimmigrant Communities.” UC Berkeley Undergraduate Journal. 2015. In press.
  19. Leonard, Lori. “‘We Did It for Pleasure Only’: Hearing Alternative Tales of Female Circumcision.”Qualitative Inquiry 6, no. 2 (2000b): 212-228.
    DOI: 10.1177/107780040000600203
  20. Moyn, Samuel.The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History. Cambridge: Belknap Press. Kindle edition, 2010.
  21. Prinz, Jesse. The Emotional Construction of Morals. Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition. 2007.
  22. Schramme, Thomas. “Should We Prevent Non-therapeutic Mutilation and Extreme Body Modification?”Bioethics 22, no. 1 (2008): 8-15.
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00566.x
  23. Sheldon, Sally, and Stephen Wilkinson. “Female Genital Mutilation and Cosmetic Surgery Regulating Non-Therapeutic Body Modification.”Bioethics, 12 no. 4, (1998): 263–285.
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-8519.00117
  24. Smith, Courtney. “Who Defines ‘Mutilation’? Challenging Imperialism in the Discourse of Female Genital Cutting.”Feminist Formations 23, no. 1 (2011): 25-46.
    DOI: 10.1353/ff.2011.0009
  25. Trager, Jonathan D.K. “Pubic Hair Removal: Pearls and Pitfalls.”Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology19, no. 2 (2006): 117-23. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S108331880600060X
  26. UNAIDS & World Health Organization. “Male Circumcision.”Technical Guidance Note for Global Fund HIV Proposals, 2011. http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/programmes/programmeeffectivenessandcountrysupportdepartment/gfresourcekit/20110831_Technical_Guidance_Male_Circumcision_en.pdf
  27. UNFPA-UNICEF. “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: Accelerating Change (Joint Funding Proposal).” UNFPA-UNICEF Joint Programme on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting. E-book. http://www.unfpa.org/publications/female-genital-mutilationcutting-accelerating-change.
  28. UNICEF. “Eradication of Female Genital Mutilation in Somalia.” United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, 2004.
    www.unicef.org/somalia/SOM_FGM_Advocacy_Paper.pdf‎
  29. Wade, Lisa. “The Politics of Acculturation: Female Genital Cutting and the Challenge of building Multicultural Democracies.”Social Problems 58, no. 4 (2011): 518-537. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/sp.2011.58.4.518
  30. Wagner Jr., Richard F., Trudy Brown, Rebecca E. Archer, and Tatsuo Uchida. “Dermatologists’
  31. Attitudes toward Independent Nonphysician Electrolysis Practice.”American Society for Dermatological Surgery 24, no. 3 (1998): 357-362.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9537011
  32. World Health Organization. “Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation: an Interagency Statement: UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCHR, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO.”World Health Organization, (2008). http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/fgm/9789241596442/en/
  33. World Health Organization. “Global Strategy to Stop Health-care Providers from Performing Female Genital Mutilation: UNAIDS, UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNHCR, UNIFEM, FIGO, ICN, IOM, WCPT, WMA, MWIA.”World Health Organization,(2010). http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/fgm/rhr_10_9/en/
  34. Yoder, Stanley P., Noureddine Abderrahim, and Arlinda Zhuzhuni. “Female Genital Cutting in the Demographic and health Surveys: A Critical and Comparative Analysis.”DHS Comparative Reports no. 7, (2004). Calverton, Maryland: ORC Macro.
    http://www.measuredhs.com/publications/publication-cr7-comparative-reports.cfm
  35. Young, Cathy, Myrna L. Armstrong, Alden E. Roberts, Inola Mello, and Elayne Angel. “A Triad of Evidence for Care of Women with Genital Piercings.”Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, (2010). DOI: 10.1111/j.1745.7599.2009.0479.x

 

[1] My article won’t digress into an anatomy lesson, but it is noteworthy that Western-style piercers do not pierce “vaginas.” http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/women-with-vagina-piercings-to-be-classed-as-suffering-from-fgm-10113202.html

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/31938409; http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03/18/vaginal-piercings-classed-fgm-new-nhs-guidelines_n_6892376.html; http://www.thefrisky.com/2015-03-19/nhs-genital-piercings-count-as-female-genital-mutilation/; http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/women-with-vaginal-piercings-will-be-recorded-as-suffering-fgm-under-new-nhs-rules-10116464.html; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2999462/Women-vaginal-piercings-classed-having-suffered-female-genital-mutilation-says-Department-Health.html; http://www.infowars.com/uk-regulation-to-label-women-with-vagina-piercings-victims-of-genital-mutilation/; http://www.prisonplanet.com/uk-regulation-to-label-women-with-vagina-piercings-victims-of-genital-mutilation.htm; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/11480359/FGM-Vaginal-piercing-to-be-recorded-as-female-genital-mutilation.html; http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fgm-women-vaginal-piercings-classed-5356141; http://guernseypress.com/news/uk-news/2015/03/17/vaginal-piercings-classed-as-fgm/

[4] A 60-page excerpt of my 2014 honors thesis, “Investigations of Female Genital Alteration in the US Within Nonimmigrant Communities” is pending publication for this Fall 2015, in the UC Berkeley Undergraduate Journal.  http://escholarship.org/uc/our_buj

[5] I only use the language of “female genital mutilation” when specifically addressing the UN et al.’s “FGM eradication campaign.”

[6] Refer to the anatomical drawings showing the variety of female genital piercings. Illustrations by Jennifer Klepacki. Used with permission of The Piercing Bible: The Definitive Guide to Safe Body Piercing. www.piercingbible.com.

[7] World Health Organization, “Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation: an Interagency Statement: UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCHR, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO,” World Health Organization, (2008), 11, http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/fgm/9789241596442/en/; UNICEF, “Eradication of Female Genital Mutilation in Somalia,” United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, 2004, www.unicef.org/somalia/SOM_FGM_Advocacy_Paper.pdf‎; (For alternative narratives and standpoints to the anti-”FGM” campaign, see: Lori Leonard, “‘We Did It for Pleasure Only’: Hearing Alternative Tales of Female Circumcision,” Qualitative Inquiry 6, no. 2, 2000: 212-228, DOI: 10.1177/107780040000600203; and Hastings Center, “Seven Things You Should Know About Female Genital Surgeries in Africa,” Hasting Center Report 42, no. 6 (2012): 19-27, DOI: 10.1002/hast.81

[8] Ibid, 9, 11, 24.

[9] UNFPA-UNICEF, “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: Accelerating Change (Joint Funding Proposal),” UNFPA-UNICEF Joint Programme on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting. E-book, 2012, 12, http://www.unfpa.org/publications/female-genital-mutilationcutting-accelerating-change2012.

[10] WHO, Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation…2008, 26.

[11] Ibid., 26-28.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid., 28.

[14] UNAIDS & World Health Organization, “Male Circumcision,” Technical Guidance Note for Global Fund HIV Proposals, 2011. http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/documents/programmes/programmeeffectivenessandcountrysupportdepartment/gfresourcekit/20110831_Technical_Guidance_Male_Circumcision_en.pdf

[15] Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985, Chapter 38, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/38

[16] “BDSM” is the acronym for Bondage and Discipline, Sadomasochism. It is an umbrella term for a wide range of sexual play and expression considered outside mainstream sexual norms.

[17] Bibbings, Lois, and Peter Alldridge, “Sexual Expression, Body Alteration, and the Defence of

Consent,” Journal of Law and Society 20,no. 3 (1993): 361, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1410312

[19] Ibid.

[20] Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, Chapter 31, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/31/pdfs/ukpga_20030031_en.pdf

[21] Since the age of sexual consent and medical consent is 16 in the UK, clearer language that addresses the specific  age would correct this problem, as an example: “under 16,” “16 through 17 years of age,” “under 18 years of age,” or  “18 years of age and older.”

[22] WHO, Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation…, 2008.. (I critique this document in much greater depth in my thesis, “Investigations of Female Genital Alteration…”.)

[23] As an aside from our immediate issue, the 2008 UN Interagency statement on FGM is the source of the UK’s ongoing issue of whether female cosmetic surgeries are mutilation or not. (The document takes the stance those “elective” surgeries such as vaginal rejuvenation and hymen repair ARE mutilation while acknowledging many Western countries may not agree).

[24] WHO, “Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation…., 2008, 27, 28.

[25] Ibid., 28.

[26] All italic emphasis in this paragraph was added by the author. I include “reinsertion” since when jewelry has been taken out of a piercing, the piercing fistula starts to shrink, reinsertion in some instances may stretch the piercing channel. Generally, in a well-healed piercing and executed by an experienced piercer, changing female genital jewelry carries a remote possibility of tissue trauma; as such I did not include “jewelry changes” under Type IV.

[27] Bjerring, Peter, Henrik Egekvist, and Thomas Blake. “Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of

Three Different Depilatory Methods.” Skin Research and Technology 4, no. 4 (1998): 196-199. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0846.1998.tb00110.x; Brunn Poulse, Pia, and Maria Strandesen, “Survey and Occurrence of PPD, PTD and OtherAllergenic Hair Dye Substances in Hair Dyes,” The Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2013, http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2013/02/978-87-92903-92-1.pdf; Glass, Allison S., Herman S. Bagga, Gregory E. Tasian, Patrick B. Fisher, Charles E. McCulloch, Sarah D. Baschko, Jack W. McAninch, and Benjamin N. Breyer, “Pubic Hair Grooming Injuries Presenting to US Emergency Departments,” Urology 80, no. 6 (2012): 1187-1191, DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.08.025; Herbenick, Debby, Venessa Schick, Michael Reece, Stephanie A. Sanders, and J. Dennis Fortenberry, “Pubic Hair Removal among Women in the United States; Prevalence, Methods, and Characteristics,” Journal of Sexual Medicine 7, no. 10 (2010): 3322-30, DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.01935.x; Trager, Jonathan D.K. “Pubic Hair Removal: Pearls and Pitfalls.” Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology 19, no. 2 (2006): 117-23. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S108331880600060X

[28] “Tackling FGM in the UK: an Intercollegiate Recommendations for Identifying, Recording, and Reporting,” 2013.

[29] Ibid., 12.

[30] Information Health and Standards Board for Health and Social Care, “ISB 1610,” 2014, http://www.isb.nhs.uk/documents/isb-1610

[32] Secretary of State, “Female Genital Mutilation: The Case for a National Action Plan,“ https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/384349/FGMresponseWeb.pdf

[34] I use the APP’s definition of “body piercing” to mean: “Western-style practices of female genital piercing.”

[36] There could also be a legal issue of Actual Bodily Harm, “ABH” (not related to “FGM”) if the client or piercer received sexual pleasure from the piercing process or if the piercing were performed in the context of a BDSM sexual scene. See information on the Spanner Case.

[37] “Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003,” sections 2 and 5.

[38] These three celebrities have all gone public with their genital piercings; no “outings” were done for this article. (Vibe Magazine interview with Serena Kim) http://brownsista.com/janet-jacksons-interview-with-vibe-vixen/; ((christina Aguilera’s Vertical clitoral hood piercing was confirmed with Taj Waggaman, body piercer, in a personal communication, March 23, 2015); (Lady Gaga, September 12, 2011), http://www.thesuperficial.com/photos/lady-gagas-about-to-feel-a-breeze/0913-lady-gaga-upskirt-01

[39] This is a link to a forum with nurses discussing the London Evening Standard “FGM” article. They expressed personal opinions on how they should interpret female genital piercing and the law. http://www.practicenursing.co.uk/forum/topic.aspx?TOPIC_ID=23989

[40] House of Commons, “Female Genital Mutilation: Follow Up,” 2015, 6, 7. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmhaff/961/961.pdf

[41] WHO, “Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation…,” 2008, 10.

Point #63: Arkansas Legislation

1 Comment read Legislation, News

Misty Forsberg headshotBy Misty Forsberg

When it comes to discussing what has taken place with the legislative changes in Arkansas, I still feel a little uneasy saying that it is all said and done. I think that after over a year of walking on eggshells—we didn’t celebrate too early or get our hopes up before anything was finalized—has had a lasting effect on my ability to really relax now that things are officially signed and in place as law. The whole process really has been two stories unfolding, side-by-side, as we both fought for higher standards to be put in place surrounding body art, yet at the same time tried to prevent a ban on scarification*.  Steve Joyner handed me some of the best advice at the very beginning of this whole process when he made it clear that we would hate this before it was over, but that it would be worth it. At the time I didn’t understand what he meant. After countless nights crying at my laptop as I removed paragraph after paragraph that the state wouldn’t agree to budge on—and times where I genuinely didn’t know if I was capable of accomplishing what I had set out to do—those words now make complete sense. It was one of the most rewarding and—at times—most heartbreaking projects I have ever had the pleasure of working on.

2
Photo by Misty Forsberg

For the sake of this not becoming a novel, the brief history of how this started began when the Arkansas Department of Health held a meeting with a group of two piercers—one permanent cosmetic artist and around ten tattoo artists—to discuss the idea of making legislative changes that might help our state. While the others attending the meeting came unprepared with any sort of solutions to the complaints they had with our current laws, Dustin Jackson and I took the advice of Steve Joyner by meeting beforehand; we arrived prepared with a printed copy of Oregon’s body art laws, notes on improved training requirements we felt were necessary, and resources that the state could turn to for updated piercing information and facts. Our planning paid off, and after the first meeting it became clear that the state was relying on the two of us to hand them the legislation we wanted to see in place; without really knowing it, we had jumped straight into the deep end of the pool.

The next year was a blur of meetings with each other, the state, and Steve as he guided us through the many hoops that must be jumped through to write and implement legislative changes. The seemingly endless lineup of meetings to keep the momentum going were difficult on us all; the meetings required hours of driving, several days at a time away from our work as well as our families, and—for Steve—five meetings that involved long flights out from California. To say that it was a crash course for Dustin and I would be an understatement, and to add to the turbulence that comes with any change to an industry, the state’s attempts to send out ‘sample’ drafts of what the new laws might look like turned our already difficult task into an all out uphill battle to calm nerves and dispel the misconceptions it created. The only positive reaction that came from the uproar it caused was the formation of the Arkansas Body Modification Association by Joe Phillips. The ABMA is a group open to all licensed Arkansas artists which, for the first time, brought us together in an organized and unified way to work toward a common goal as opposed to fighting against ourselves. It couldn’t have come together at a better time. The AMBA allowed us to have a small network of artists that voted together on the issues that Dustin and I had sought to change; it turned the ideas of two people into a voice that could actually represent the body art industry.

With the approval of the Department of Health, the State Board of Private Career Education, and a Senator (who sponsored the bill), we thought we were finally on our way to a successful piece of legislation. But before any celebration could take place, I received word that a Senator was drafting a bill to ban certain forms of body art, including scarification. That Senator happened to be Missy Irvin who, as our sponsor, held the future of our body art bill in her hands. We had some warning that this might take place (thanks to a previous meeting in which the attorney for the Department of Health questioned us about several forms of heavy body modification). Even so, I was unprepared as I read the draft she had written. Being the only active scarification artist in my state (at least, that I was aware of), it was incredibly difficult to not feel like I had been slapped in the face by the people I had dedicated so many hours of work to. After several failed attempts to educate those presenting the ban about the inaccuracies throughout their bill, I realized that the decision was not whether or not to fight this, but how to fight this and who would I have to stand with me.

This is where the story really divides between our bill, SB388, and the modification ban, SB387. I wish that I could write this from an unbiased or universal viewpoint of all those involved, but it would be impossible to even try. I can’t really explain the internal conflict of knowing that fighting for something I loved and believed in might destroy the year of work that we had all put in with SB388. Steve and I discussed the possible consequences of fighting against the same Senator that had the power to kill our bill before it was ever heard, and the rational side of me knew that if it absolutely came down to it I would have to put the interest of my industry as a piercer first. (He was a good enough friend to not sugar coat the fact that I was—very likely—fighting a losing battle, one that would pit me against a Senator and the Department of Health to defend scarification as a legitimate form of body art.) The odds were not good, and the impact on SB388 could have been grave if it wasn’t approached carefully.

Arkansas Legislation
Photo by Misty Forsberg

The first round of fighting was broken between two meetings in the Senate Committee for Public Health, Welfare, and Labor. It was somewhat surreal that I was personally responsible for speaking on behalf of my industry. Although I expected to be terrified, I felt—more than anything—fortunate to have those I worked with trust me to be in this position. In the end, the overwhelming crush of losing the fight for scarification was countered by the unanimous vote in favor of our body art bill, SB388. With an unexpected show of media attention on the potential scarification ban, and SB388 looking more and more likely to pass on through the house, we were given a difficult decision; take a gamble by talking to the media (which could easily turn on us) or roll over and allow scarification to silently become illegal. We took the gamble and began speaking out online, in the media, and to other artists to try and get as much awareness as possible before the House Committee meeting—which would be our last chance to overturn the ban. The gamble paid off, and the worldwide response was incredible; emails poured into the inboxes of the House members scheduled to vote on both bills.

The day before the meeting at the House, Senator Irvin and the Department of Health offered to amend the bill to meet our requests if, in turn, we would quit speaking against it in the media and agree not to oppose it in the committee meeting. I was speechless; not only were they no longer considering banning scarification, they were willing to list it as a regulated form of body art (one which individuals can be licensed in—like tattooing, piercing, and branding). Our voice had finally been heard! We chose to speak in favor of the bill at the meeting in order reassure the members of the committee, who had received email after email against it, that the amendments satisfied the needs of our industry. In the end, both bills passed unanimously.

I honestly have no words that can explain the combination of relief, excitement, disbelief, and gratefulness I realized once we had won. Although much of what we want to accomplish will come in the months ahead, as we write the rules and regulations, our biggest battle is now behind us. With this bill in place, the most significant advances for the piercing industry will include requiring that all steel and titanium jewelry for initial piercing meet ASTM standards (accompanied with mill test certificates), requiring all acceptable materials for initial piercing will be listed in the rules and regulations, banning the use of piercing guns outside of the earlobe, setting age limits set for all body art procedures, and requiring yearly BBP certification for artists, and stricter requirements for body art instructors. And, hopefully, this list will only continue to grow as we move forward over the next few months.

Oddly, the most valuable lesson I learned from this was not about legislative writing, legalities, or how to create change in my state. It was about support, the importance of all of us supporting each other as an industry. There were several points in this fight that I felt utterly alone, overwhelmed, and defeated because I had no idea how I would win such an unbalanced fight. The victory in scarification did not come from me speaking against it; it came from groups like the APP who chose to take a stance and support what we were fighting against—even though it was outside of their focus on body piercing—the A.P.T.P.I. and all the individuals who helped us from overseas, from tattoo artists to body piercers, who were willing to stand behind us with nothing to gain. Our state’s fight is done for now, but there will always be another one taking place. Individually, we might be body piercers, tattoo artists, modification artists, or whatever else we identify as, but if we don’t learn to fight for each other as one unified industry, we will all suffer because of it.

Arkansas Legislation 2
Photo by Misty Forsberg

Thank you so much to Steve Joyner for guiding us through this process, as well as the A.P.T.P.I, ABMA, and the countless individuals who reached out to make sure that our very small group knew that we were not alone. A very special thank you to the APP for taking such a huge step by supporting us in keeping scarification a safe and regulated practice in our state.

*In our state, Branding is listed as a separate form of body art from scarification. Throughout this article, scarification is intended to specifically mean forms of cutting the skin to form an intentional scar as opposed to all forms of scarification in general.

 

Point #62: Legislation Update – South Australia

Comments Off on Point #62: Legislation Update – South Australia read International, Legislation

IMG_3716Kim Zapata headshotBy Kimberly Zapata

On November 15, 2012 the South Australian government passed a new law—and tougher penalties—regarding the piercing, tattooing or modifying of minors. This new legislation, as outlined by the Attorney General’s Department, made it illegal to “perform a body modification procedure (such as tattooing, body branding or ear stretching) or intimate body piercing on a minor under the age of 18 years[; to] perform a non-intimate body piercing on a minor who is under 16 years of age without the consent of a guardian[; to]perform a body piercing or body modification procedure on a person who is intoxicated (whether by alcohol or other substances)[; or to] sell body modification equipment to a minor.” Those found guilty of unlawfully piercing, tattooing or modifying a minor will be subject to a slew of penalties ranging from a $5000 fine to twelve months in prison. (This is an increase from the previous $1250 fine, or three months imprisonment.) According to Attorney General John Rau—and adelaidenow.com—the new laws represent “the biggest changes to tattoo [and piercing] legislation in decades” and piercers will be held to these standards through written agreements they are now required to enter into with all customers. These agreements will contain any “information required by the [new] regulations…[while also providing customers] with information about aftercare and the possible risks of a procedure.”

For more information about South Australian piercing, tattooing, and body modification legislation, visit the South Australian Attorney General’s Department.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Since the passage of this law an additional push, driven by the industry, has been made to ban reusable ear piercing guns in South Australia. For more information about the propsed ban, view a recent news story—courtesy of TENnews.

Point #61: New York Legislation Update: New Law Requires Parental Consent for Body Piercing

1 Comment read Legislation, News

by Kimberly Zapata

On July 30, 2012, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo signed a new law into effect that will require all minors in the state of New York to “have written parental consent before obtaining a body piercing.” While this law, in many areas, may come as surprising news (since 38 states already have a similar statute in place), until this bill was signed, “New York law stated that there was no minimum age requirement for body piercing.”

However, it is important to note that the new law does not include piercings of the ear. For the purpose of the law, New York State has defined body piercing as: “any piercing located on a part of the body other than the ear.”

The new regulation not only requires body piercers to “check the identification of teens” and asks “underage teens [to] provide a consent form signed by a parent or legal guardian” (consent that must be given in the presence of the owner of the body piercing studio or a body piercing specialist), but includes the expectation that studio owners then retain this information for no less than 12 months.

The law is slated to take effect on October 30, 2012, though many New York piercing establishments began adopted the new regulations shortly after it was signed into effect.

For more information about the new piercing legislation in New York, view New York state’s official press release.

[Editor’s note: Regardless of local legislation, the APP’s stance on piercing minors remains that “a (proof positive) parent or legal guardian must be present to sign a consent form…for any piercing of a minor.”]

Point #60: Legislative Update

Comments Off on Point #60: Legislative Update read Legislation

By Mike Martin

After a great conference I have been having so many thoughts and I’m trying to sort things out. One realization that became quite clear is that legislation on body art is a hot topic all over the world. That seemed to be the subject most talked about at the international meeting, our annual Members’ meeting, and just in general with people I spoke to during the week. Small talk always became legislation talk in some form.

Christina Shull gave us a glimpse of her legislative efforts in Oregon and the progress that was made in that state. She even had two Oregon Health Licensing Agency (OHLA) women join us at Conference: one who works on the state’s testing requirements, and one who works on drafting and creating regulations. They attended the full conference and sat in on many classes, workshops, and roundtable discussions. They were impressed with the event and how much they learned while there.

We heard from Steve Joyner about the legislative efforts he has been involved with throughout the year and all over the USA. Since conference he has been working with Stephanie Segal, Rob Hill, and the Iowa State Health Department researching language used in other state regulations. I also spent time with him and APP Vice President, John Johnson at the National Environmental Health Association (NEHA) conference the following week. We talked to many people from around the country and some were a little surprised to know that I was wearing two hats (Legislation Liaison for APP, and President of the Alliance of Professional Tattooists, APT).

I learned a lot from John Johnson and saw Steve Joyner in action once again. It is amazing how one little word can completely change the meaning of an answer or the asking of a question. Steve is very aware and aggressive when it comes to “little words” that may be spoken or written that could have a long-term impact on our businesses and bottom lines. I wish we could make 50 Steve clones and have one as a representative in each state. I believe it would save the APP money and really help piercers as regulations are being promulgated or updated.

With that thought in mind I also believe that if we could have “State Reps” the APP would have an opportunity to encourage other piercers to get involved with the lawmaking process. APP State Reps would also have access to other piercers in their state and encourage them to join the organization. State reps could keep in touch with other piercers in their region and would be the “goto guys/girls” for matters involving training, legislation, and establishing rapport with local and state legislators.

If you have any thoughts on this approach please share them with us.

Legislation in the United States is a huge undertaking, there are 50 states to be covered and in each state there are multiple counties. For example, in California there are 62 counties. In each county there are multiple cities, towns, and villages–and sometimes they have their own body art regulations to work with. As you can see, the need to have proactive professional piercers leading the way is important. That way no one gets tripped up on that “one little word” that could ruin or change everything. We can talk to legislators and explain to them what we do for a living and help them know the difference between an implant and a surface anchor, a suspension and an energy pull, or a piercing needle and a piercing gun.

Almost all of the states have regulations in some form; many need updating and have begun that process. A couple of states are regulated through the Cosmetology Commission or Board of Cosmetology. The Kansas Board of Cosmetology regulates Kansas, and the Cosmetology Commission regulates South Dakota. Body art in New Mexico is regulated by the Board of Barbers and Cosmetologists. “Thirty-two states have laws that prohibit both body piercing and tattooing on minors without parental permission.”1 Iowa, New Jersey, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Oregon have no age limits in place. This is a prime time to get involved in “the process” and give back to the industry that puts food on our tables and shoes on our kids.

At this time, the following are the members of our Legislation Committee: Steve Joyner, Christina Shull, Ashley Misako, and myself. If you would like to join our committee or assist us in any way please contact me (legislation@safepiercing.org) or fleshskingrafix@gmail.com, or call my cellphone: 619-719-2291.