By Dave Andrusko

Okay, okay, the incongruity of California passing legislation that prohibits minors from using tanning beds at the same time it trice has rejected parental involvement in a minor daughter’s abortion decision is too obvious to belabor.

Or is it?

Let’s consider why this says more than is obvious on first blush. California’s first-in-the-nation law (due to take effect January 1, 2012) says if the child is under 18 (not 16 or other ages, as is the case elsewhere), they can’t use these tanning beds.

Here’s a quote from the Associated Press story

“The ban will hurt businesses, many of them owned by women, said the Indoor Tanning Association. About 5 percent to 10 percent of its members’ customers are under 18, the industry group noted.”

Let me be clear, while I obviously am not drawing a parallel between the indoor tanning business and Planned Parenthood, it’s hard to miss that if there was a minimum age for an abortion, PPFA and its ilk would lose a lot of money.

Also, the bill’s primary sponsor argued that the kind of radiation used in tanning beds leads to a kind of skin cancer (melanoma) that can be fatal.

I wonder if the indoor tanning industry will look for lessons from the success enjoyed by the abortion industry in persuading the media (and the NIH) that there is no connection between an induced abortion and a higher incidence of breast cancer?

Your feedback is so very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha