To: Dean Sanpei,
Date: Wed Mar 05 15:59:28 MST 2014
Dear Mr. Sanpei,
As a massage therapist for 8 years I am opposed to HB 324 because;
1. Despite the fact that there has been a SUBSTITUTE BILL, I am still OPPOSED to HB324, and do not wish to allow an exemption to the Practice of Ortho-Bionomy to the Utah Massage Bill.
Please don’t assume that because there has been a substitute bill, that Massage Therapy as a profession is now comfortable with the new bill. This is NOT true for me.
2, There are only three (3) Ortho-Bionomy practitioners in the state, Why are we allowing an exemption for 3 people???
***3. Ortho-Bionomy defines itself using terms of massage, such as therapeutic bodywork, compression, light touch, smooth movements, gentle pressure, and they even mention that a session with an Ortho-Bionomy practitioner is similar to that of a massage session.
In essence, IT IS MASSAGE.
4. It DOES NOT limit its practice to only certain parts of the body, it is practiced on the full body.
5. If we continue to allow exemptions to our massage bill, we are basically welcoming people practicing massage to be allowed to practice UNREGULATED. We also slowly deconstruct our own law until it does not protect the massage therapist and the public as it has been written.
6. As a female massage therapist I feel this opens the door for the “illegal” places to open all over the valley and in turn leaves me unprotected against men wanting something else.
Please consider this when you vote.
Robyn Ryther, LMT