House Status:
Senate Status:
Senate Status:
Minutes for SB348 - Committee on Public Health and Welfare
Short Title
Exempting the practice of threading from the practice of cosmetology.
Minutes Content for Mon, Feb 7, 2022
Chairperson Hilderbrand opened the hearing on SB348.
Jenna Moyer, Staff Revisor gave an overview of the bill.
Samuel MacRoberts testified as a proponent of SB348. He said eyebrow threading is an ancient, safe and all-natural grooming practice that involves the temporary removal of eyebrow hair with a single strand of cotton thread and nothing else. He stated that Kansas currently requires 1,000 hours of irrelevant and expensive schooling to becomes licensed to thread. It is estimated that 993 hours of that schooling is devoted to non-threading-specific instruction. He also said that the current licensing requirement is nonsensical, arbitrary, unnecessary, and one of the worst in the nation. SB348 would increase economic freedom, promote business growth while keeping consumers safe. (Attachment 1)
Jessica Poitras stated in her proponent testimony that the Institute of Justice supports SB348 for three reasons. First, threading is safe; second, esthetician program curricula rarely covers threading skills, but Kansas law requires them to spend thousands of dollars and thousand of training hours in a program that does not relate to their services; and SB348 is a jobs and opportunity bill. SB348 will reduce barriers to entrepreneurship and help consumers fine threaders to provide this in-demand service. (Attachment 2)
Jonathon Lueth provided proponent testimony by stating that SB348 would eliminate unnecessary government licensing barriers for people to earn income through threading, which is not relevant to the purview of cosmetology licensing in the first place. He said it is unethical for a board to require a license that takes nearly one year and nearly $20,000 by some estimations for a skill they do not teach in their classes. (Attachment 3)
Written only, proponent testimony was submitted by:
Wendy Doyle, President, United WE (Attachment 4)
Christie Kriegshauser, Chamber of Commerce (Attachment 5)
Arif Karaowalia, Perfect Brow Bar (Attachment 6)
Nicole Hines, Vice Chair of the Kansas Board of Cosmetology testified in opposition of SB348. Because of the impact on the public's health and safety, the Board requested that the practice of threading remain under the Board's jurisdiction. The Board is concerned with sanitation standards for both the practitioner and the facility. (Attachment 7)
She took questions from committee members.
Stephenie Dugan gave opposition testimony stating that threading should remain under the supervision of the Kansas Board of Cosmetology, to continue routine compliance inspections in order to monitor the proper sanitation and disinfection, for the safe of licensed practitioners and their clients. (Attachment 8)
She answered questions from committee members.
Len Melvin stated in his opposition testimony that he is opposed to SB348 for many reasons. He said hair removal should be regulated by the state as this service is one of the higher risks for consumers in the beauty profession. He stated he is aware there are deregulation efforts in some states but it is important in the state of Kansas that we think through the issues and have conversations on the importance of the statutes and regulations that govern these services and why they are in place to ensure consumers are well protected and safe from harm. (Attachment 9)
He took questions from committee members.
Tamara Cummings testified as an opponent to SB348. She stated the nature of hair removal can be quite painful and leave clients susceptible to adverse reactions. The importance of knowing proper preparation and skin examination prior to hair removal services is pertinent. Licensing by the board ensures that proper training is had before licensed individuals are able to work on the general public. (Attachment 10)
There were no questions.
Written only, opponent testimony was submitted by:
Michaelle Holland, Entourage Institute of Beauty and Esthetics (Attachment 11)
Stacey Peters, Crave Beauty Academy (Attachment 12)
Kim McIntosh, Kacie Pepper and Morgan Goetz, SALON Crave (Attachment 13)
Kamaljeet Bhandal, Licensed Cosmetologist (Attachment 14)
Chairperson Hilderbrand closed the hearing on SB348.
