By Carlos Miller
So senior citizen Sam is feeling sexual with his senior citizen wife Samantha.
He tells her to disrobe for him and she does, as she’s done so many times before in their 40-year marriage. She poses suggestively as he snaps a few photos. He still finds her beautiful.
But under a proposed law in Massachusetts, he is suddenly a felon, liable to up to ten years imprisonment.
House Bill 1688, sponsored by Kathi-Anne Reinstein, a democratic state representative, would make it illegal to photograph with “lascivious intent” a person over the age of 60 or a person with a disability who has been declared mentally incompetent.
Next she’ll want to outlaw Viagra.
According to Disaboom:
State Representative Kathi-Anne Reinstein says the bill she sponsored was intended to protect vulnerable populations from sexual predators, but some disability advocates and law buffs have criticized the amendments as restricting the sexual freedom of seniors and people with disabilities.
If Mass. HB 1668 is passed, a person violating the new provisions of the law would receive a mandatory minimum sentence of at least ten years in prison or a fine of at least $10,000. This would include spouses photographing one another with “lascivious intent.”
Popularity: 1% [?]
6 responses so far ↓
1 genewitch // May 7, 2009 at 1:14 AM
i don’t know if i have the ability to get angry at representatives anymore this week, after the whole “pharmacists can decline to dispense Plan B” in Missouri; among other things.
2 diomedesxx // May 7, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Better than what we face in parts of Texas: when advocating a certain house bill for this session, one of the House members blatantly said he didn’t care what his constituents wanted, he wasn’t voting for it.
(FYI, the bill would reclassify only possession less than 1 oz of pot to a class C misdemeanor, with no jail time. Free up resources in jails, more money from the fines, but apparently that doesn’t mean much to some people. Doesn’t affect distribution charges, etc. – just possession only.)
More on point, yet another case of a stupidly over-reaching bill. I can understand where they are coming from, but the language is much too broad and doesn’t have enough qualifiers.
3 Nerdbeard // May 7, 2009 at 2:38 PM
I used to hear about bills like this and laugh. But with the passage of the DMCA, PATRIOT, wiretapping, suspension of habeas corpus, etc… Well I just don’t think it’s funny anymore.
4 Anton Lee // May 8, 2009 at 2:30 PM
this is the same state that thought it was a good idea to ban Fluff. . . yeah the marshmallow spread for your peanut butter sandwich. (made in Lynn, MA)
this state, Massachusetts, is absolutely disgusting.
5 Ariel // May 10, 2009 at 11:16 PM
Well, this will certainly put a lot of mature and granny MILFs out of work. If only they had a union…
6 R (not a Federal agent) // May 16, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Whether pharmacists are required to dispense Plan B (or other prescriptions they may object to) should be a matter between them, their employers, and their customers. It’s not a matter for legislation.
Leave a Comment