Shane Ott, owner of Sinner Soul Tattoo in Temple, has been around tattooing for most of his life.
He has tattoos on his head and intends to ink his face one day.
Lawmakers are looking to enact a number of regulations on the mostly unwatched tattoo and piercing industries, including inspections and tests. Ott and some tattoo shop owners agree the industry needs some regulation.
“It should have been done years ago,” Ott said. “You are talking about people’s lives. There are too many variables for cross-contamination.”
The Tattoo, Body-piercing and Corrective Cosmetic Artists Act, House Bill 456, would ban tattooing or body-piercing someone under 18 without the written consent of a parent or legal guardian.
It would also require tattoo and body-piercing establishments to register with the state Health Department.
Artists performing procedures would have to pass a written examination regarding health, sanitization, sterilization and safety standards. Shops would be inspected to ensure standards are maintained and artists would need a doctor to confirm that they are free from infectious diseases.
It also bans the practice of tongue splitting, in which the tongue is cut into two, often to resemble a serpent’s tongue, unless it is performed by a physician or dentist.
Similar state bills have been proposed in past years but have never become law.
“Years ago when I first introduced this bill, a municipal mayor brought it to my attention,” said the bill’s prime sponsor, state Rep. Anthony DeLuca, an Allegheny County Democrat. “We are one of the few states that don’t regulate tattoo shops. It is an invasive procedure. They break the skin.”
Ott said that he knows of shops that don’t use autoclaves, a high-pressure sterilizer, to clean tools and don’t use a hospital-grade disinfectant that can kill HIV and hepatitis on contact.
Despite the lack of state laws, many shops follow their own policies. For example, Ott won’t tattoo anyone under 17. Those who are 17 require a note from both parents in his shop.
Jay Cain, owner of Inked In Tattoo & Piercing Studio on South Fifth Street in Reading, said that he fully supports the state regulating the tattoo industry.
“They need to be focused on people operating in their basement,” Cain said. “It’s very unsafe. A lot of these guys are not taking the right precautions. They could be using the same needles on different people.”
The city of Reading has had an ordinance guiding tattoo and piercing establishments since 2013 that requires a permit, current blood-borne pathogens training, liability insurance and other specific record-keeping guidelines.
Both artists have mixed feelings about some elements of the tattoo and piercing bill.
Under the bill, it would be illegal for an artist to apply a tattoo on a face, or anywhere above the neck.
Ott has long planned to extend tattoos to his face. He said that since he was young, he has known he wants to be fully covered.
While they support requirements leading to clean and professional shops, they don’t want to see individual expression muted.
“I don’t think they have the right to tell someone how they should modify their own body – I don’t see how they can,” Ott said. “It’s a personal choice.”
Cain agrees.
“That’s very unconstitutional,” he said. “That’s like saying you can’t get your hair cut a certain way,”
Courts have held that tattooing is a purely expressive activity fully protected by the First Amendment, according to Elizabeth Randol, legislative director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania.
“Any restriction on facial tattoos would have to be narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest,” Randol said. “Both the tattoo-er and tattoo-ee have First Amendment expression rights in this context.”
She is not certain that tongue splitting is a form of expression, but if it is, any regulation of the practice must be narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest.
“The provisions in House Bill 456 don’t make a claim to a government interest in limiting facial tattoos or tongue-splitting.
If either provision were to be challenged, the government would need to argue what the government’s interest is in limiting those modifications, and why those interests are compelling enough to justify overriding a person’s right to free expression,” Randol said.
Contact Beth Brelje: 610-371-5022 or bbrelje@readingeagle.com.