a community of practitioners

The Utah Brouhaha

A couple of the officers of the Utah Chapter of AMTA are upset with me for a video I put out yesterday about H.B. 243 that is in the works in their state. You may read the bill here.

This bill removes the term “therapeutic” from the description of massage. It also modifies the language in their Practice Act to include “recreational massage.” Is there anyone among us who would like to be known as a recreational massage therapist? Please weigh in on that. I am personally not acquainted with anyone who would like to be known that way.

I read the bill in its entirety, when it was brought to my attention, and then, AMTA member that I am, went to the Utah Chapter’s website to see what they were doing about this. I was shocked to see no mention of it anywhere, so during the course of the video I encouraged AMTA members to get in touch with their board members and mobilize them to take action on this, and I urged all Utah therapists to contact their legislators to protest what in my opinion is a detrimental change in their language. I posted it on the Utah Chapter’s FB page, as well as my own.

Imagine my disbelief when I received a communication from one of their officers on my youtube channel telling me that I should have contacted them before making my video and telling me to take it down asap. They are of course free to remove it from their own page. They are not free to tell me to remove it from mine. It has had over 700 hits in the last 24 hours and been shared by over 400 therapists. One therapist had made a positive comment about H.B. 243 on FB, the last time I checked. Too many others to count were all as distressed about it as I was.

I also received a lengthy and polite response from one of their officers, that stated “There is no mention of this on the Utah Chapter website. This matter has purposely not been published on our website at AMTA Utah Chapter precisely for the purposes of NOT bringing attention to the fact that the Massage Therapy Practice Act was being “opened for changes” in this legislative session,” and ended with the request that I remove the video without comment, and to check with them in the future before I make any reference to Utah again.

Sorry, but that will not be happening. Perhaps you have heard of the First Amendment. READ MORE....

Comment

You need to be a member of massage and bodywork professionals to add comments!

Join massage and bodywork professionals

Comment by Laura Allen on March 9, 2011 at 5:43am: I would say so.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on March 8, 2011 at 10:33am: I understand that Chapter members have representatives on a Legislation Committee, but they also have DELEGATES! I have a question Laura. Isn't it time for the delegates to be asking their Chapter members how they feel about issues that need addressed?

Could not this be presented as a change this year in Oregon?

Comment by Laura Allen on March 3, 2011 at 2:05pm: @James, Les Sweeney, the Pres of ABMP, addresses that in his latest blog on the main page of this website.

@Daniel, our state uses the designation "Licensed Massage Therapist & Bodyworker" and we also reference in our practice act massage for "relaxation" purposes. The folks in Utah apparently have the idea that this will put a stop to sex workers calling themselves massage therapists. What has happened here in my state is that the happy ending set now just blatantly advertises themselves as performing "stress relief rubs." "Rub" isn't a covered illegal term.

As for the public sentiment, I don't know. But judging by the many comments I have had on my FB page, it's so far been 5 therapists in favor of the change and several hundred against it. The video has gotten over 1200 hits and been shared over 500 times since I put it up on Feb 28.

Utah's practice act can be read here. The proposed legislative changes can be read here.

Personally I think we ought to legalize prostitution everywhere. Get these people a board and a practice act and they can proudly advertise themselves as prostitutes instead of hiding behind massage, and pay a licensing fee and taxes just like the rest of us.

Comment by Daniel Cohen on March 3, 2011 at 9:32am: As I understand, the regulation must be changed because of a court ruling. It seems some are reluctant to open it to public debate. What is the public mood towards state massage regulation? Laura do you have any suggestion for alternate wording? If a court ruling is driving the change this may have to be dealt with in other states. It does need to be discussed.

Was Therapeutic Massage defined in the regulation? The definition section in such cases is critical to enforcement. Why couldn't simply Massage/Bodywork be used in place of "Therapeutic" or Recreational"?

Comment by James Mills on March 3, 2011 at 9:08am: From what I am reading then, I have to agree that AMTA does not appear to be working in the interests of the people they proclaim to be there for. I am not criticizing, but rather raise the question of whether ABMP should also have brought up this issue?

Comment by Laura Allen on March 3, 2011 at 4:39am: Any time you have a need to write to a representative, just keep it short and sweet along these lines.

Dear Rep _____,

I am asking you to please vote no to _______. As a massage therapist I feel this is detrimental to our licensees and our profession in general.

You can of course list the reasons you personally have for being for or against something...but they generally don't care. An acquaintance of mine who works for a member of congress has told me he is just supposed to go through the correspondence and answer phone calls and that he has a checklist of yes/no to tally how many people weigh in to support or don't support something and the representative just wants the tally, and doesn't even read the letters. That's probably relatively common.

Comment by Carol J McDaniel on March 2, 2011 at 2:25pm: Do you have a letter that you sent to your local representatives? It would be beneficial to post this so the rest of us can copy, paste, edit, and add our two cents to our local legislators. Thanks for getting the word out.

Comment by Alexei Levine on March 2, 2011 at 7:43am: I'm so tired of people playing political games. After watching the unbelievable abuses in my state where people on the massage board blatantly pursue their own private agendas against large vocal opposition from the majorities, and often for their own financial gain, I've become very cynical. Now when I hear about congress trying to stop the US DOE from issuing very weak rules to prevent things like predatory recruiting by for-profit schools, I feel like I'm witnessing outright corruption at the highest levels.

Comment by Ravensara Travillian on March 2, 2011 at 7:23am: “There is no mention of this on the Utah Chapter website. This matter has purposely not been published on our website at AMTA Utah Chapter precisely for the purposes of NOT bringing attention to the fact that the Massage Therapy Practice Act was being “opened for changes” in this legislative session,”

Sounds very much like my bank's doublespeak when they announced that "For your convenience", they would be cutting their Saturday hours.

Good on you for aiding transparency and for standing up for your right to voice an opinion, Laura.

Comment by Daniel Cohen on March 1, 2011 at 8:24pm: Transparency needs to be encouraged not prevented. Keeping it out of the public eye can only serve vested interests who want their way or no way. Don't we have too much of this in politics already? Do we need it from our own representatives?

Thank you for opening up the issue Laura.

At least they didn't call it "Adult Entertainment" as most locales in California had us licensed. Or did they set an age limit for recreation?