TSA Confiscates Pregnant Woman's Insulin, Ice Packs
from the how-nice-of-them dept
DogBoy alerts us to the latest in customer service niceties from your friendly TSA agents. A pregnant woman, travelling alone via Denver International Airport, had her insulin and ice packs confiscated after TSA agents claimed they were a threat. The items were properly labeled and the woman had the requisite doctor's note. When asked why they were doing this, the TSA agent claimed that such things were "a risk":"He's like, 'Well, you're a risk.' I'm like, 'Excuse me?' And he's like, 'This is a risk ... I can't tell you why again. But this is at risk for explosives,'� the woman said.In typical TSA denial fashion, it has issued an apology... while also suggesting the woman is lying:
�We talked to all of our people and they didn�t touch her insulin," said TSA spokeswoman Pat Ahlstrom.
Ahlstrom said ice packs are only allowed if they�re completely frozen and the woman�s were not.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ice, well erm.. melts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ice, well erm.. melts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ice, well erm.. melts?
Therefore, frozen gel packs are allowed. Thawed gel packs are not.
Yes, it's absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ice, well erm.. melts?
Gel packs don't "freeze" during normal use, i.e. in a typical home freezer. That's kinda the point of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Recording
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Last time I checked Ice melts when its not in a freezer. Maybe physics/chemistry works differently for the TSA (Think these full body scanners give off no radiation...because we say so)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because we have no cameras like we claimed in the past.
We do not have a problem with TSA agents stealing things, because we asked them and they said they wouldn't steal.
They are all honest and upright and never abuse their position in any way.
While I'd like to believe the woman and vilify the TSA, there is a huge gap in the story here.
More telling is a quote from her, that she managed to hide and sneak some insulin in anyways.
The bigger story is we are now screwing with medical supplies to avoid terrorists, and that is fing stupid.
Just when you think it can't get any more stupid... they find a way.
How far is to far, until the American people say WTF were we thinking and stop having a knee jerk reaction to we have to do this because of terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but but
If you are going to have security theatre, if you are not going to do it right, why bother doing it at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But is it really only a bad few of TSA agents(scattered around the world or USA) that have issues with travelers? Are they misrepresenting TSA as a whole?
I can't imagine that ALL TSA agents are hardened assholes about everything with a know it all attitude. Ive personally had fairly positive experience going through checkouts and stuff with no problems of myself and others. Including patient and understanding agents when someone didn't know what to do or did something wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So we have:
Public citizens violated: 3 (that I can think of off the top of my head)
Terrorists caught by the TSA: 0 (the two that were caught by citizens didn't go threw a TSA checkpoint, so technically wouldn't count against the TSA)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The two who were caught, as well as the dozen or more other people causing problems aboard airplanes were caught by the people the TSA likes to abuse. I believe the TSA is just upset that the general public is better at catching terrorists than they are, and are dishing out some retribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're all assholes. Every last one of them. If they weren't, they wouldn't be supporting terrorism by working for the TSA. (I trust you're intelligent enough to grasp why the TSA was one huge Christmas present to Al Queda; I'm sure even in their wildest dreams that they couldn't dare hope it would work out so well for them.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The TSA should not exist at all. It doesn't matter how many "bad apples" there are when the apple tree is tearing up the foundations of your house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I feel safer now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA sucks donkey bungholes, violently!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TSA sucks donkey bungholes, violently!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defective
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who is the bigger threat here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who is the bigger threat here?
It depends:
If you are talking in terms of reality - the TSA is *obviously* the bigger threat.
But in today's cesspool of a world, the media and government spin would indicate that the pregnant woman was the threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who is the bigger threat here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who is the bigger threat here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who is the bigger threat here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who is the bigger threat here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who is the bigger threat here?
> someone who needs it medically be a criminal
> offense? Knowingly taking it would (I assume)
> mean that you knowingly put someone at risk
> of dieing or at the least cause a serious
> medical issue.
As a Type 1 Diabetic, I consider it attempted murder.
--Prof Andy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Say What
Its been a while since I've chiseled stone, but I think I'm gunna need a week for this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Say What
as 'what the FUCK is wrong with you?!' moments go, for the TSA, that one's pretty high up the list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A rule too far
Fixed that for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zero problem each time. I told them I had it, they looked it over, keep moving. Wonder whether this is just a left hand/right hand deal or if there's more to the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now, if she showed up with unlabeled vials, a melted ice pack, and so on, I would say that she might be setting them up to Fail. No doubt if she got on board with it, she would be crowing about how she snuck potential bomb making material past the TSA.
Sounds like one of those "anti security theater" types that Mike loves so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sounds like one of those "people trying to get on a plane to go somewhere" types that Mike loves so much.
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wow that's gonna be an awkward term in future discussions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Expected reduction
Anti-Security Theater Tard
AntiSecTheaTard
Astheatard
You saw it here first folks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But no, Fuck the Poor, she doesn't deserve to live, andf all that jazz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Carrying something that looks like insulin isn't proof that it was prescribed, nor is it proof of what it really is. You are making the simple mistake that can cost lives.
There is no "fuck the poor she deserves to die", that is you own hyperbole bullshit that proves you don't have any good argument here.
The TSA said they didn't take her insulin, they only took her unfrozen (and therefore useless) jelpacks.
She also claims to have smuggled stuff on board. She sounds like a truly credible, law abiding citizen, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Carrying something that looks like a prescription isn't proof that it was written by a doctor, nor is it proof of what it really is. You are making the simple mistake that can cost lives.
Carrying something that looks like a medical degree isn't proof that someone is a doctor, nor is it proof of what it really is. You are making the simple mistake that can cost lives.
Et cetera, ad nauseum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Read closely: The TSA didn't take her insulin. They may have CHECKED her insulin, but they didn't take it. However, they did take her useless unfrozen gel pack things.
Just because you show up at the gate with prescription medication in your hand does not mean that you have it lawfully, or that it is even what the label claims it to be. There are plenty of Oxycontin addicts out there that can come up with all sorts of reasons why they have a bunch of pills under someone else's name.
So, would you like to take another swing at it there slugger, or are you willing to admit that you just sort of jumped all over something because you don't like the truth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now I guess you can boil this down to She Said, They Said, but I don't see right now how one is more trustworthy than the other, especially considering the TSA tactics of just following orders now and evading later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
TSA agents have stolen a lot of stuff, molested children and the elderly, broke colostomy and urostomy bags, forced a woman to remove her prosthetic breast, lied about the amount of radiation the scanners use, lied about whether the machines can even store pictures, etc. I don't consider them credible at all. I don't have any reason to consider this lady less credible just because she didn't want to have the TSA go through her stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Given the choice between keeping my potentially life-saving medication or being accused of being a non-credible, law breaking citizen by an anonymous commenter on the internet, I'd go with keeping the medication...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
She merely said that they didn't find 1 vial that she had somewhere else. If the TSA took all your other insulin, and that 1 vial could save your life, no person in their right mind would then tell those TSA a*holes they still had 1 vial.
And since even according to the TSA insulin is allowed, it wasn't illegal for her to carry it on a plane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abide by the Law????
Most of man-made law is a quicksand of control. As I teach my children, the only thing that is truly yours is free-will and the only right is that you have the ability and the responsibility to make a choice. After looking at this for many years, it is obvious to me (at least) that men and women in power try to take away your right to choose. God Almighty himself has made it plain that he will not take away your right to choose but also makes it plain that the responsibility of the consequences of your choices is also yours.
Be of good cheer, live long and choose well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, either you didn't read the article, or you just like to argue. I'll let the crowd decide which it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Lose the 4th amendment or people will die!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because, you know, the TSA doesn't do enough crappy things as it is, so Mike needs help finding material. And because activists cannot possibly have legitimate medical conditions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a perfect example of a fascist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It was kinda nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That was the sound of the point going over your head.
The point is that it is all NOTHING BUT THEATER if they aren't even using the equipment all the time. The TSA (and ICE, DOJ, the government in general) KNOWS the equipment is useless as far as stopping terrorism goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Certainly not protecting the citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not only is it 'old news', but with the focus on the TSA and the failing airlines, it would quickly be clear that another target will likely be woefully unprotected.
The TSA claims to be there for our 'safety' - yet, they even fail at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
After all, that crowd of people busy either (a) sexually assaulting passengers (b) stealing passenger belongings (c) being sexually assaulted (d) having their property stolen is large, stationary and predictable. Very tempting target, wouldn't you say?
Of course the gibbering baboons at the TSA like to pretend that because -- putatively -- they've made the airplanes safe, that airline travel is safe.
But it's not. Nothing has changed except that the addition of cockpit doors has made it much less likely that a plane will be used as a weapon. But that does nothing to protect the passengers, who, in the TSA's security model, are expendable whether in the air or on the ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sample Headlines...
Some type of explosive blows up plane in flight.. 300 people died. (this one is all sad and makes people angry)
vs
A terrorist was stopped trying to light a bomb hidden in their padded bra. (this one causes half the flying population to either get a more intrusive groping or to stop wearing bras on board)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
take the vial of properly labeled insulin or bottled water and replace it with something like ammonium hydroxide also clear and will burn your lungs or better yet one member of your team carries on chemical one and the other 3 members carry on chemicals 2,3 and 4, together they make a toxic gas or flammable material. hence the ban on containers like water and colostomy bags. don't forget the adult diapers it could be a bomb. its all in the name of Just in case.
Flying is a privilege not a right. take a train/drive or call ahead and research the screening procedures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Funny how they don't actually ban all liquids and gels, isn't it? I wonder how many poisonous gasses capable of killing an entire plane of people you could make with just the containers in one small ziplock bag.
Flying is a privilege not a right. take a train
The TSA is starting in on trains and buses too. Keep burying your head in the sand in the name of keeping your magic tiger rock, though. I'm sure it will all turn out well in the end as long as you keep yourself in a constant state of fear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
49 U.S.C. � 40103 : US Code - Section 40103: Sovereignty and use of airspace
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No airline has to take you anywhere...unless they want to lose their common carrier status. Sure, they can deny transportation to legal travelers, but if they do so, then they deserve no federal funds, no access to public terminals, and no subsidies on fuel and right-of-way. They can load and unload at a private terminal, pay full price for their jet-fuel, and we don't have to bail them out when they go out of business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Way too cynical for my blood...I'm out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.
you forgot this part....
(b) Use of Airspace.--(1) The Administrator may modify or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.
hence its a privilege not a right irregardless of the wording.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And if Martial Law is declared, your rights are modified and/or revoked by an "administrator" when required in the "public interest". Sure, there is a line between rights and privlidges, but that line gets thinner and thinner every day.
The real difference between rights and privileges these days? Privileges are what they allow you to do, and rights are what the cop reads to you, as he is arresting you for filming them.
Based on the way people in the U.S. get treated by their own government officials and those they empower to act on their behalf, I'd have to say that the same thing applies to the U.S. Constitutions Bill of Rights, irregardless of the wording.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do us a favour please. If you should ever meet this woman, doubtful I know, but if you do, look her in the eye and say that you honestly, 100 percent, feel safer now that the TSA take away her medication. Or do the same if you meet the old grandmothers who have cancer, and are told to hold up completely non-functional arms. Or those who have liver cancer, whose urine bags are deliberately burst open and thus have to literally sit through a flight with ruined trousers.
Thanks to the TSA, I have decided I am never travelling to the U.S.A. That's my tourism dollars you'll never see. There was even an in-depth article in a national newspaper a couple days ago about this problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> take a train/drive or
> call ahead and research the screening procedures.
All the means of travel you suggested are "privileges." You can be searched getting on a train. Your car can be searched while you are driving.
As for calling ahead, that will result in someone who doesn't care lying to you.
--Prof Andy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And if that isn't enough to make you rethink what you just said--then there's the fact that they MISSED the bottle in the bottom of her lunch bag, allowing her to get on board with her nail polish, hair spray, and syringes (with needles).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds a little fishy to me.
I'm surprised she would even need an ice pack. I never use them. Most insulin only requires refrigeration while in long term storage. Once you start using a vial or pen you no longer need to keep cold. It's fine as long as it stays at room temp. Assuming you'll use it up in the next week or 2.
Not defending the TSA goons. They're all drunk on their power trip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sounds a little fishy to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sounds a little fishy to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then later in the article.
"It made me feel upset and made me feel somewhat helpless," said the woman's husband, Aaron Nieman.
Oops.
My wife is a Type I diabetic. She has had a TSA agent take her insulin vials from her, hold them up to a light, shake them, and then look at them as though he could tell anything from doing that, and them return them, having somehow magically ascertained that it was just insulin.
Security Theater indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What should have happened:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What should have happened:
Besides, would not this all start falling under the ADA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What should have happened:
Wait, I lied. The latter is more terrifying. Not to take anything away from the TSA, they're still right up there, well above the official terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taking Ice away from a potential bomb?!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good thing we're stopping terrorism...
Nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do ice packs need to be fully frozen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crazy
I think the lady should of brought a doctors note to backup her claim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crazy
Please go back and read the rest of article:
"The items were properly labeled and the woman had the requisite doctor's note."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dangerous liquid confiscated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talk is cheap
We can all jump on the TSA and vilify them (rightly so IMO) but that's not going to make any changes. People have to do something, so get off the comment threads and start writing letters to your elected representatives. If that doesn't work, then you will have to organize rallies to demonstrate your collective disgust over what the TSA does. And you have to keep the protests real and under control. As soon as windows start breaking and the riot police show up, you've lost all credibility.
Bottom line is put up or shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]