House Status:
Senate Status:
Senate Status:
Minutes for SB434 - Committee on Federal and State Affairs
Short Title
Exempting the practice of hair removal by sugaring from the definition of cosmetology.
Minutes Content for Wed, Mar 6, 2024
Chairperson Carpenter opened the hearing on SB434. The revisor provided an overview of the bill (Attachment 8). Questions were asked by Representatives Hoye and Miller.
The Chairperson recognized Representative Barb Wasinger as a proponent of SB434 (Attachment 9). She stated that she has a constituent that wants to start a sugaring business, but the Board of Cosmetology is stopping her. The Board requires her to attend cosmetology school, which costs between $16,000 and $20,000, and a year of not being able to work to learn something she already knows how to do. She stated that sugaring should be exempt from the onerous rules and regulations imposed by the Board of Cosmetology. Representative Miller had questions.
The Chair recognized Sam MacRoberts as a proponent of SB434 (Attachment 10). He stated that he represents Representative Wasinger's constituent in a lawsuit against the State of Kansas and the Kansas Board of Cosmetology over this occupational licensing routine involving sugar. He stated that although sugaring is safe, the licensing regime criminalizes it when it is done without a license. He stated that this bill will remove a needless, unreasonable, and burdensome occupation licensing requirement for a safe grooming technique. Representatives Miller, Eplee, and Haskins had questions. In response to a question, he stated that this prohibition is unjust, it is unconstitutional under the pursuit of happiness clause of the Kansas Constitution, as well as violates equal protection because right now it is perfectly safe to perform sugaring for free, but it is illegal to do it for money. SB434 is a good solution for this problem.
The Chair stated that there is written proponent testimony from Wendy Doyle (Attachment 11).
Chairperson Carpenter recognized Nichole Hines as an opponent to SB434 (Attachment 12) (Attachment 12A). She stated that she has been a licensed cosmetologist and Esthetician for 30 years. She said the reason sugaring is not focused on in school is because it is a specialty. It is something that is learned after the basics. She has done sugaring for ten years. She is testifying against this bill due to her concern for the spread of communicable diseases, specifically venereal diseases, that can be transmitted without proper sterilization and sanitation.
Michelle Legg testified as an opponent to SB434 (Attachment 13). As a cosmetology instructor, she stated that they teach anatomy and physiology, chemistry and electricity. These subjects are crucial for the students to know and understand the body systems and muscles and why the chemicals and other tools that are used do what they do. The ultimate goal is to keep the client safe. The Board of Cosmetology provides an additional layer of protection for the public.
Leticia Martinez testified in opposition to the bill (Attachment 14). She stated that without proper knowledge of disinfection and sanitation, a person could easily get infected with ringworm, herpes, hepatitis, AIDS or other diseases. They are also taught in cosmetology school about blood spill procedures and are required to have a blood spill kit in their treatment rooms and salons at all times. They get fined if they are inspected and do not have one. She urges the Committee not to pass SB434.
The Chair recognized Roseanna Pollina who testified in opposition to SB434 (Attachment 15). She stated that the chance of contamination while using sugar wax is higher because when it is used for performing Brazilians the provider is using the same "sugar ball" the whole time. When not used properly, bruising and tearing of the skin can occur, which can cause infections, scarring, hyperpigmentation, and other aggravating skin conditions.
Chairperson Carpenter closed the hearing on SB434.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
