Discrepancies in Iowa's Body Art Laws

In the state of Iowa, in order to obtain a tattoo a person must be eighteen years of age, and have adequate proof of age; there are no other provisions. If a person wishes to have one's ears pierced, he or she must also be eighteen years old, or provide parental consent in the form of the parent's presence and signature. However-- the state of Iowa currently has no age-restrictions for one obtaining body piercings; it is solely up to the discretion of the individual piercing artist. The fact that many of the reputable artists are not only unwilling to exploit this by piercing minors but have been pressing the state to implement a law forbidding piercing those who are underage show that this issue is serious enough to put the well-being of teenagers above the quest for money. Unfortunately there are also disreputable artists who have no such concern, and make money off teenagers, even to the point of reminding parents that it is legal for them to do so.

One of the main factors in there being laws to regulate body art is that it is a very real health concern. Prior to obtaining tattoos or ear piercings a person is given detailed information about the health risks involved, including the potential for infection; the person, or his or her parent, must be aware of these risks and sign a waiver which releases the artist of any and all possible liability in the event of health repercussions from the process. This subject is where Iowa's laws leave room for misuse by those artists who are indeed disreputable enough to take advantage of teenagers-- because, while it is legal in the state of Iowa for these artists to pierce your child's face or other body parts, it is not legal for them to allow a minor to sign a this type of form which relieves the artist of liability. To illustrate the mindset of such "artists," upon approaching one with this information, this particular artist who was licensed by the state of Iowa stated that he would allow any kid who seemed to know what he was doing, regardless of age, to sign such a form-- and that he, the artist, would hold no accountability in the event of infection because the child was underage. One may be tempted to hope that this type of money-grubbing morons who have no concern for the health of youngsters are in the minority, as evidenced by the number of artists who flatly refuse to pierce minors even though they legally have the right to do so.

However, it would appear even more logical to not leave the issue up to the conscience of individual artists-- for anyone who considers piercing holes in various parts of one's anatomy to be by some stretch of the imagination necessary, this practice should be governed by the same regulations which currently cover tattoos and regular ear piercings: that it should not be legal for any artists to do this process on minors, or, at the very least, to require parental consent. If this were to be regulated in the same manner, perhaps there would be fewer instances of disreputable artists managing to break public health laws by attempting to keep both teenagers and parents alike in the dark about the fact that minors cannot legally sign these forms.