MLN Vol.1.No.4

Massage Law Newsletter.

Vol. 1. No. 4.                              ISSN 1073-5461                                   July 1997

ATTENTION

THE PENNSYLVANIA LICENSURE

COALITION IS PROMOTING A MASSAGE LICENSURE BILL TO PROTECT THE

PUBLIC FROM HARM.

BUT THE COALITION HAS NOT

PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE THAT

MASSAGE HARMS PEOPLE.

IF MASSAGE IS NOT HARMFUL,

THERE'S NO NEED FOR THE STATE  TO

PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM HARM.

WHY FIX SOMETHING

THAT'S NOT BROKEN?

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATORS REQUIRE

EVIDENCE THAT:

1. The unlicensed profession is a serious danger to  the public health and safety.

2. State licensing will adequately protect the public health and safety.

3. No other means can protect the public health and safety.

ONE ATTORNEY SAYS

          "Legislators are currently disinclined toward licensing of new professions and have learned that the old arguments about protecting the public more than likely really mean 'Secure me a vested interest.'

          "It seems that proponents of licensing are hopeful that a state license would mean more money, status, and power."

Jerry A. Green, Attorney  for the California Coalition on Somatic Practices 

THE PENNSYLVANIA LICENSURE COALITION

1. Has been working to create a bill which

protects the public from harm.

2. Says that licensure is first and foremost to

protect the public from  harm.

3. Says state licensing will create educational

 requirements for that public protection.

WHAT HARM?

If massage causes no harm, state regulation is not needed to protect the public.

If massage causes  harm, state legislators have to know how many people are injured and how serious the injuries are in order to decide whether state regulation is needed to protect the public.

 PENNSYLVANIA

LEGISLATORS  SHOULD

ASK THE COALITION:

WHERE'S THE HARM?

[Home] [Massage Law] [Journal ] [Special Issues] [Bios] [Spiritual Massage] [Massage Humor]