On behalf of all lipstick lesbians, I agree.
That said, I'm not that attracted to women who wear a lot of makeup. But at least someone is fighting for them ...
@1: Consumer protection isn't just for people you're attracted to, you know.
Can't you at least get Maralyn's district correct? It's the 32nd, not the 31st.
Anything for you Ivan. Thanks a million.
I was trying to translate it into something guys might care about.
Wow, this bill is full of so many assumptions, it's ridiculous. First, there haven't been any major studies done to indicate that cosmetics cause cancer. The one in 2006 that is referenced in the SF Chronicle article linked to in the blog you link to was very small-scale. Second, Marilyn Chase just flat out states that women of child-bearing age use more cosmetics than women of other ages. Excuse me!?! I don't know about your experience, but my grandmother uses about 8 times the amount of makeup that I do. Then Representative Chase uses this "fact" as part of the justification for the "need" for her bill. Third, the bill allows the department of health to use available health effects data to decide whether a product is safe to sell in this state. Great, so if this passes, Seattle's going to be too hippie to sell YSL and Dior makeup. You know, if you want to help women of child-bearing age, Representative Chase, how about working to get use guaranteed 3 months of paid leave when we have a baby. This is a waste of time.
I agree, @6 wins. But that doesn't mean Rep Chase can't push the bill cause it's important to her ...
More animal testing of cosmetics would validate concerns like Keiser's.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).