TSA Defends Forcing Elderly Woman To Remove Adult Diaper (Updated)

UPDATE: The TSA said in a statement its agents did not require the woman to remove her diaper:

“While every person and item must be screened before entering the secure boarding area, TSA works with passengers to resolve security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner. We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally, according to proper procedure and did not require this passenger to remove an adult diaper.”

The original post:

The Transportation Security Administration has given a vote of confidence to agents who ordered a 95-year-old woman to remove her adult diaper during a pat-down.

The woman, who suffers from a form of leukemia, was traveling from Florida to Michigan to stay with relatives. She burst into tears when TSA agents made her find a bathroom remove the diaper because they felt something suspicious on her leg.

CNN cites a statement from the TSA:

“While every person and item must be screened before entering the secure boarding area, TSA works with passengers to resolve security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner. We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally and according to proper procedure.”

TSA stands by officers after pat-down of elderly woman in Florida [CNN via Huffington Post]


Edit Your Comment

  1. chucklebuck says:

    We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally and according to proper procedure.

    Then the proper procedure itself is in need of revision.

  2. GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

    They did NOT ask her to remove her adult diaper. They asked the care giver, the daughter, to change the soiled diaper her mother was wearing. It appears from all this uproar that people think it’s OK that this woman sat through the rest of the day in a soiled diaper, but asking a care giver to change it for a clean one is a violation of civil rights.

    • plasmatop says:

      Where does it say any of that?

      • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

        “Where does it say any of that?”

        In pretty much every article about this situation. Here’s one example:

        “Then security personnel told Weber that they wanted to remove her mother’s soiled Depend diaper as it was blocking their search. Weber rushed her mother into the bathroom and removed her diaper, even though there was no clean one to replace it with. All this happened, when there was only two minutes left for Reppert’s flight.”


        • plasmatop says:

          Well it does not say that in the article that Consumerist linked.

          The CNN article seems like pretty good reporting and tells us what happened. The quote you just put sounds like sensationalist garbage.

          • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

            Actually, it does say that in the CNN article, just not in those same EXACT words. The CNN article mentions the blocking of the search by the soiled garment, the daughter taking her to be changed, and that she was without underwear after it(because there was no change available).

            News organizations can’t each all post the same exact story word for word to make consumption by some people easier. There are things such as writing styles of the reporter and other things like word limits or brevity to factor in. If you comprehend what you read, you can see how the story matches when reported on by different organizations.

            • plasmatop says:

              I would hardly call the CNN article one sided. It seems pretty balanced from what I read; which is pretty unusual for CNN. But articles others have posted make the TSA out to be monsters and this women and her mother to be complete martyrs. It doesn’t sound like that is the case at all. They know airport security is strict, especially for those with wheelchairs. Why would they not make sure her diaper was not soiled before heading to the security checkpoint? Why would they not bring extra diapers for a flight that was going to last several hours?

              Neither party is at fault or without blame. The situation sounds like it was handled as best by both parties as the circumstances allowed for. The TSA thought something was suspicious. Should they give her a pass because she is old and disabled? It doesn’t sound to me like they discriminated here at all and only that they were doing their job.

              The funny part is that if this woman ended up with a stick of dynamite strapped to her ass and she got past security you would all be up in arms over why TSA didn’t screen better. You bitch and moan when they do their job and bitch and moan when they don’t do their job. It’s like you will take any excuse to come down hard on them.

              • playtrombone64 says:

                I take any excuse to come down hard on them because they are violating my Constitutional protection against unreasonable search.

                “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

                Just because I or anyone else decides to travel by air does not constitute a waiver of these rights. The very first part of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution preserves our right to be secure in our persons. If you have probable cause to think I have dynamite strapped to my ass, get a warrant and then you can search me all you want. If you don’t have probable cause (and flying on an aircraft doesn’t constitute probable cause) then keep your damn hands off me.

                I think next time I fly I am going to leave a big old turd in my pants and let the TSA fondle that.

                • plasmatop says:

                  You’re missing the point. Maybe you are sound in your comments and opinions but a lot of people around here and in this country are not. They have similar opinions to yours up until it is not convenient to have those opinions; at which point they are changed.

                  The same people that cry their rights are violated are the same people that will turn around and cry there is not better security when someone decides to blow up a plane. It’s pretty hard to win when you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

                • JennQPublic says:

                  If you want to fly, you have to allow them to search you. If you want to attend a concert in a big arena, you have to allow them to search you. This is not a violation of your rights, it is an agreement you enter into when you arrange to do these things.

                  If you don’t want to be checked for dynamite, don’t fly. It’s that simple.

                  • Bladerunner says:

                    Ah, but in principle, there could be a concert venue that allows you in without searching. In fact, very few places out here do searches, and they aren’t done by the government.

                    But with flying you are required by law to be screened. Which is why it’s unconstitutional.

                    Also, I call BS on the “Then just don’t fly” option. Driving is more than twice as expensive, and takes 10 times as long. It’s not as viable an option. You’re basically saying “Then don’t travel”.

                • J from ATL says:

                  It’s not unconstitutional. You can elect not to fly. Otherwise, you are electing to a limited waiver of your fourth amendment right. See US v. Davis 482 F2d 893.

                  “[A]irport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”

                  “[An administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”

          • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

            “Well it does not say that in the article that Consumerist linked.”

            The Consumerist (Phil especially) tends to link to incredibly one-sided articles and then abridges them to make them as sensationalized as possible to generate page views.

            If an article seems especially bizarre, it’s typically a good idea to go to news.google.com and look for independent verification. Do a search for “TSA diaper”, read 3 or 4 articles, and things start to make more sense.

      • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:


        “Weber said she sat outside the room during the search.

        She said security personnel then came out and told her they would need for her mother to remove her Depends diaper because it was soiled and was impeding their search.

        Weber wheeled her mother into a bathroom, removed her diaper and returned. Her mother did not have another clean diaper with her, Weber said.”

        While that’s not as sensational as the CNN article, the CNN article partly states this when it says:
        “An agent told Weber “they felt something suspicious on (her mother’s) leg and they couldn’t determine what it was” — leading them to take her into a private, closed room.

        Soon after, Weber said, a TSA agent came out and told her that her mother’s Depend undergarment was “wet and it was firm, and they couldn’t check it thoroughly.” The mother and daughter left to find a bathroom, at the TSA officer’s request, to take off the adult diaper.

        …But she said her mother, a nurse for 65 years, “was very calm” despite being bothered by the fact that she had to go through the airport without underwear.”

        So yes, I do admit that I didn’t just trust Phil’s recount of what happened, and checked the source material and other sources. After last weeks failure to include the mention of the suspicious items being thrown into the reservoir as the reason to drain it by Phil and many news orgs, I really think people need to read the source articles before making a judgement of the situation.

        • plasmatop says:

          I read the source article that was linked. If you’re going to comment and pull info from another article that was not sourced, it would be nice for you to post that one as well.

          That being said, the CNN article doesn’t seem sensationalized at all. Other articles people are posting about this incident seem to be drawing their own conclusions and connecting dots when they don’t really have a full and accurate account of events.

          • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

            Uhhh, I did post that article. Did you not see the link in red at the top of my comment? As for the bottom part, that was taken directly from the CNN article linked to in the post here. I properly gave sources for all of the quotes I copied.

            • plasmatop says:

              I am looking at your original post, I see no link. I see a post you made in regards to one of mine that has a link, but I asked for it since it wasn’t originally there.

              I meant post the link in the original comment. I shouldn’t have to ask for it. Just looks like you’re hiding something and therefore you seem less credible.

      • Eviile says:

        “A TSA agent told Weber that her mother’s Depends underwear was “wet and firm and they couldn’t check it thoroughly,” so the mother-daughter duo left in search of a bathroom to remove the underwear. Weber did not have an extra pair of Depends with her.”

        http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/06/26/tsa-pats-down-elderly-woman-removes-adult-diaper-video/ (which is a link from the huff post).

        Does that count?

    • It's not fun. It's not funny. says:

      Then you’re good with what happened? or are you putting your own slant on the events as you’ve read about them?

      • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

        Yes, on the TSA’s part. They were trying to complete a search and they asked a caregiver to change a soiled diaper.

        On the caregiver’s part, No. She did not bring a change of diaper for her poor mother? She has leukemia, and is probably a little immuno-compromised. Having her sit in a chair without moving for the ~2.5 hour flight, the wait before and after and the trip, etc… to where she could be changed is just inviting a bedsore or some other type of sore that could legitimately KILL this poor woman before the cancer could. On top of that, getting hysterical is in no way helping this woman who was, by the daughters own admission, calm stay that way.

    • playtrombone64 says:

      No, the diaper was not soiled, it was “wet and firm”. Diapers are designed to absorb urine and keep it away from the skin, so there is no particular harm to the wearer to be in that state for a period of time.

      There is no need for the TSA to have to have a 95 year old person remove their undergarment for any reason, ever. I sincerely wish people would stop defending these sorts of government actions which violate our Constitutional rights.

      • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

        “No, the diaper was not soiled, it was “wet and firm”.”

        As someone who has taken care of my elderly mother for several years, I can attest to the fact that when a diaper is “wet and firm” that it needs to be changed. Expecting one’s mother to sit in her own waste for an entire flight is cruel and demeaning.

        I had to do the same thing for my own wife for close to a month after she recovered from some major health problems and resulting surgeries. Adults typically don’t complain because of the embarrassment of it but if you can feel it on the outside, the wearer can definitely feel it on the inside.

        • playtrombone64 says:

          Regardless, it is not the government’s decision to remove the diaper. The government was not even saying that the diaper needed changed for the good of the wearer, it was that they were so stupid and insensitive that they said they needed to have it removed to satisfy their own procedures.

          And, if there was no other diaper available (say what you will about being prepared or not) I would think it better to not have to have the wearer go through the embarrassment of possibly wetting her pants on board an airliner than to have a somewhat wet diaper on. Sometimes you have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

          Bottom line is that the government has no right telling this woman or her caregiver to remove the diaper. Period.

        • RadarOReally has got the Post-Vacation Blues says:

          You don’t know whether she intended to leave her in it for the whole flight. They might have planned to change it on the other side of security. Even if not, that’s an entirely different discussion. The point is, right or wrong, needing to be changed or not, the contents of that old woman’s underwear were not the TSA’s business.

          • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

            There was no clean replacement. It was never meant to be changed until someone picked her mother up in Florida at the airport.

          • teamgwho says:

            really? it’s not? weren’t we all worried about the contents of the underwear bombers briefs?

            I realize that *in this case* it turns out that it was an elderly woman who had a weak bladder and unfortunately had a wet diaper. that’s embarassing. but does the TSA KNOW that that’s what they were dealing with? no. they did not. all they knew is it “was firm” and considering we’ve already had a guy smuggle a bomb in his pants we should be investigating the unusual. Sorry to say but thats the whole point of security.

    • c152driver says:

      Just when I thought it wouldn’t be possible to blame the OP, you have managed to do so. Well done!

    • MuffinSangria says:

      It is NOT the TSA’s call to make, not yours either. Something like that is no one’s business, the TSA’s or yours. Next they will be telling women when to change their tampons, and you’ll probably defend it. The TSA should not even be sexually groping people in the first place.

    • JennQPublic says:

      Well, it’s not like anyone has ever thought to put a bomb in their underpants, anyway!

      Oh, wait…

      P.S. I wish Consumerist would hire you, SteveDave.

    • Jawaka says:


      Who the hell would want to be in a plane for several hours with a woman who shit her pants? I’m sure that the other passengers who would have had to have sat in an air tight can for several hours with her and her stench would have thanked the TSA had they been given the chance.

  3. LightningUsagi says:

    From what the article says, the mother was very calm thru the whole ordeal, and it was the daughter who broke down crying. Also, I agree with SteveDave…they were having it changed because it was soiled and couldn’t do a proper inspection.

    • LightningUsagi says:

      Also, I’m a little bothered by the line that says the mother was bothered at having to go thru the airport without underwear on. That sounds to me like they hadn’t brought any change for her, which may explain why she was wearing a soiled one in the first place.

      • pecan 3.14159265 says:

        Florida to Michigan isn’t a short flight, either.

      • conquestofbread says:

        Skin breakdown waiting to happen…

      • RadarOReally has got the Post-Vacation Blues says:

        And people make mistakes. Maybe there’s a carryon sitting 50 miles away next to the door, accidentally forgotten, and it was either turn back for them and miss the flight, or push on and make the best of it. Maybe the minute they land, they plan to take a taxi to the nearest drug store. You guys don’t know the situation, but everyone’s really quick to judge it without all the facts.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      As I said to someone else, the fact she was in a wheelchair triggered a set response, which included a pat down and a swab of the chair for any substances. Even beyond explosives, there are also drugs that can be poured wet into the pipes of that wheel chair, let dry, then they hope they can sail through security, and use the old lady as cover.

      • Doubting thomas says:

        It is not the TSA’s job to look for drugs.
        They are there solely to make us feel better about the miniscule chance of a terrorist attack.

        • Max Headroom says:

          +1 exactly

        • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

          Actually, as both ICE and TSA are arms of DoHS, they do search for people trying to smuggle drugs. While they may not activly search for drugs, they don’t ignore them if they see them. A wheelchair could be used to smuggle drugs or be packed with explosives to make a bomb. In searching for one, you can find the other.

      • Max Headroom says:

        If that had been the case, they would have confiscated the chair. They didn’t. Why do you sound so hostile towards the situation?

      • RadarOReally has got the Post-Vacation Blues says:

        Funnily enough, I went through screening in two airports just a few weeks ago in two different International airports, in a wheelchair, and that didn’t happen either time. Nor did it happen with my companion, who came back in a wheelchair after breaking a foot on the trip.

        I’m much more likely than a frail, 95 year old woman to be carrying something on a plane. She didn’t look or sound like she could lift a stick of dynamite or a shank.

      • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

        in the other discussion we had, i wasn’t disagreeing that a wheelchair or medical device couldn’t be used to create a weapon or carry explosives.
        i just don’t feel that i need to travel by air badly enough to subject my medical devices to search and possible damage by people [the TSA] who are not properly trained to handle medical equipment.
        my primary care physician is not trained on insulin pumps so he doesn’t touch my pump. if an actual MD admits that he can’t specialize enough in some types of medical equipment to feel that handling it wouldn’t endanger my health – there’s no way i’m letting the TSA put their hands on my equipment.

    • daemonaquila says:

      A “proper inspection” is an inspection of whatever state the person is in. It’s baloney that an inspection requires a brand new, clean diaper. People have all kinds of medical problems – deformities, amputations, colostomies (with sometimes full bags, OMG!), cathaterizations (oh no, more bags with fluids!), giant tumors, incontinence, etc. If the TSA can’t wrap its collective “mind” around the idea that there will be variations in bodies and gear, they need to simply throw in the towel because THEY are letting the terrorists win by destroying any basic common sense and dignity. These clowns should be disciplined and fired, and the rest told to leave granny’s diaper alone the next time.

      • UHF says:

        The terror attacks were less about killing us than making us lose our freedoms. The terrorists won a long time ago, and we the sheeple went along with whatever the government told us out of fear of our “safety”

    • Jawaka says:

      How about having it changed because nobody else in the plane wants to smell that for a few hours? It can be argued that a loaded diaper on a sealed plane is a weapon to many.

  4. Gman says:

    Phil – Why use that image instead of one of the actual elderly woman? Is it a rights issue?

  5. dragonfire81 says:

    why was this woman a concern to begin with? When’s the last time you heard about a 95 year old terrorist?

    • Yomiko says:


      Not that I’m in love with the current system of TSA harassment we have going on, but an elderly terrorist is more feasible than an infant terrorist.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      Because she was in a wheelchair. When someone comes through security in a wheelchair, they receive a pat down and the wheelchair is swabbed for substances. The concern isn’t the person in the chair, it’s how someone could USE the person or the chair. You could pack a few pounds of plastic explosive or even TNT/blackpowder into the tubes of a wheelchair and put a detonator in the handle. All you would have to do is pray to Allah, twist/pull the handle, and boom. The person in the wheel chair could not even know about what was done to the chair and be oblivious.

      • plasmatop says:

        Yes, because all terrorists are only Muslim now and forever. Your ignorance completely destroys every other seemingly credible thing you have said.

        • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

          Nope. I was just presenting one of a variety of situations. BUT, you have just proved the point that terrorists AREN’T just Muslims, thus doing things besides profiling are a good idea. So searching the 95 year old white lady isn’t absurd because not all terrorists are Muslims. Congrats!

          • plasmatop says:

            Except the undertone of your comments is that she shouldn’t be bothered because she isn’t Muslim and there’s no reason to harass someone who is just a regular old white Christian. You seem all for profiling in one post and then in another you try and reverse your decision because I called you on it.

            • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

              I never said she/her wheelchair shouldn’t be searched. Please point out where I said such things. As a semi-resourceful person, if I had to build an explosive device, the pipes on a wheelchair would make excellent bomb vessels, as PIPE BOMBS are extremely potent. You could easily fit a pound of explosive into the pipes of the wheelchair shown. For a comparison, this is 100 grain charge. There are 7000 grains in one imperial pound of blackpowder:

              That being said, even if you clean it up, there will still be minute traces of the explosive on the chair, thus swabbing it and the person sitting on it makes sense.

        • andsowouldi says:

          Google must be racist too. Do a search of “terrorism” on Google News. Making a reference to the most recent terror threats does not make him a racist. Offensive perhaps to non-terrorists who also pray to Allah, but that does not deem his statement untrue.

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      It’s not her, it’s that someone might have tried to put something on the wheelchair in hopes it’ll go right by security unchecked.

  6. chickensoup says:

    I’m frankly tired of these articles. Everyone loves to take a one sided story and edit it to fit their agenda.

  7. JohnDeere says:

    the most shameful thing i have ever heard of.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      I know. Expecting a 95 year old woman to sit in her own soiled diaper for that whole trip and till her eventual destination without having a clean one is just begging for a bedsore or something that could kill this poor woman. This daughter really needs help if she expects to care for her mother properly.

  8. dailyshow_addict says:

    anybody else think TSA is just pushing their limits to see what they can get away with at this point?

  9. Fubish says: I don't know anything about it, but it seems to me... says:

    Jeez, people! Relax! SteveDave it 100% correct. The TSA did the appropriate thing – nobody was harrassed. Nobody was humiliated. They did it professionaly for a change. If anyone should be embarrassed, it’s the daughter for not bringing spare adult diapers for her elderly, incontinent mother.

  10. Jeff says: "WTF could you have been thinking?" says:

    I have to question the abilities of the caregiver if Gradma was wearing a soiled diaper and they didn’t have a clean one to replace it. Thats just gross on too many levels.

    • veritybrown says:

      That was my reaction. If you’re caring for someone who wears a diaper (regardless of age), you ALWAYS take spares with you if you are traveling away from home. Just how long did the daughter expect her mom to go without a change? The length of the flight, at minimum. But where was the next diaper? If it was in the checked baggage, what if the baggage was lost? So, the length of the flight plus however long it might take to deal with baggage, plus however long it might take to get transported to their destination, with possibly a stop at a store to buy a new package of diapers on the way.

      Perhaps the daughter’s tears were more of a reaction to the realization of her own poor planning (and its impact on her mother) than to the bullying of the TSA.

      • Emily says:

        The article doesn’t say she didn’t have a spare. Generally when the TSA is hassling a person, the person’s carry-on luggage remains in the screening area… so the daughter may not have had access to her carry-on luggage.

        Or the daughter understood (as I do) the TSA to be saying that the mother had to be screened without wearing any diaper. So she was forced to walk around without one.

        This incident is awful. It’s bad enough to be 95 and dying of leukemia… but to have your fellow humans be jerks to you? You can’t tell me they couldn’t have accomplished this by instead helping her through the screening machine.

  11. ben_marko says:

    The TSA really have done an awesome job of making themselves look like a bunch of clowns. Who can really take them seriously? Their standards for agents are obviously so low they are incapable of interpreting their guidelines anything other than literally.

  12. dolemite says:

    I found it interesting that since the daughter cried during the ordeal, she then had to be subject to all the extra procedures too, causing her to miss her plane. “Note: Subject 2 is displaying emotional distress. Begin detainment and interrogation of Subject 2 immediately.”

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      Did it say she missed her flight? I have read a few stories, and none says she missed her flight. I’d honestly(no snark intended, I swear) like to read that article, because I would think her missing the flight and having her mother go on un-attended would be featured in a story. Again, no snark/attitude/sarcasm intended.

      • beachmouse says:

        Given that the woman likely flew out of VPS on Delta, there’s no need to worry about missing the flight because of the seasch since you’re looking at a typical 30-50 minute delay from the scheduled departure time.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      I apologize, apparently the daughter wasn’t even going on the flight. She was just taking her to the terminal and putting her on the plane(her daughter also seems to act as though she has died, which would freak me out, personally.):

      “Reppert eventually made her flight, but her daughter Weber said Fox News: “It was tough to say goodbye after all of that. But she’s at peace, and she’s a good Christian woman. They’ll be waiting for her up there in Heaven.”


      • dolemite says:

        Could have sworn another article somewhere said the daughter missed her flight, but the mom made hers…or something. Maybe she meant she missed seeing her mom get onto her flight.

  13. PercyChuggs Was Found At JFK Airport says:

    Maybe people should read the actual articles in these stories, before getting outraged? Then again that would require, you know, effort.

  14. AntiNorm says:

    If it’s any consolation, she DID drop a load in the diaper before the TSA goon got to her.

    From http://on.msnbc.com/ijzLY0

    Weber said that security personnel emerged from the room and asked that her mother remove the diaper, which was soiled, in order to complete the search.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      That’s not actually. Because if you read the article, the daughter expected her to sit in that same diaper for over 2.5 hours before anyone could even have a chance to change her. All the “TSA Goons” wanted for her to be changed into a clean one. Just like those “Mother Goons” want for their babies.

      • PercyChuggs Was Found At JFK Airport says:

        You need to stop it with all this “common sense” and “reading” nonsense. It’s much harder to be offended that way.

        • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

          I know. I’m so bad when it comes to that. The problem is that if I get outraged every time something like this happens w/o actually reading the sourced article, I dilute my outrage and it’s not as potent. But if I think critically, then I can apply new “more concentrated” GESD brand OutRage to the problem, to help make it go away. It has Indignation from Concentrate!

  15. SG-Cleve says:

    Everyone complains about searches of old ladies and babies.

    In 1986 a terrorist helped his pregnant fiance pack her bags and get on a flight from London to Tel Aviv. Unknown to her there was a bomb in her bag that would have brought the plane down.

    Yet people would be up in arms if a pregnant woman was given extra attention by TSA.

    “How dare they search her, obviously a pregnant woman would not be a terrorist” they would say.

    • playtrombone64 says:

      Everyone seems to want to say it’s okay to do these searches in the name of being safe and secure. You would all give up all your liberties in the name of security. I am not willing to give up my liberties so easily. So long as I can draw breath I will speak out against the trampling of our rights and liberties.

      • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

        You seem to doubt the intelligence and veracity of the United States citizens to actually stand up and fight when it’s required. So you speak out about the trampling of your rights. Meanwhile, I’ll be flying above you drinking my under 3oz mojito, reading my complimentary issue of SkyMall, and watching Ella Enchanted on my iPod Touch in airplane mode.

    • dush says:

      Yeah but England and Israel are not bound by the US Constitution.
      The TSA should be though.

  16. ForReason says:

    “She burst into tears when TSA agents made her find a bathroom *and* remove the diaper because they felt something suspicious on her leg.”

    There, I fixed it for ya’

    • Kate says:

      No, the daughter burst into tears. The old woman used to be a nurse and was very calm through the whole thing.

      Try again.

  17. bluline says:

    Of course they defend it. Has the TSA ever NOT defended anything that they do, no matter how egregious or stupid?

  18. Talisker says:

    So, according to the TSA as long as you followed procedure when emptying the Zyklon B into the gas chamber then you acted professionally and according to proper procedure.

    Yes, I invoked Godwin’s Law.

  19. zzyzzx says:

    If I understand correctly, the TSA saved someone from having to sit next to someone on the plane with a soiled diaper.

    • RadarOReally has got the Post-Vacation Blues says:

      Yes. But if that’s what they’re there for, then let’s do away with any pretense that it’s for security.

  20. c152driver says:

    For all of you defending the TSA, I think a dose of sanity is required. If inspection procedures require removal of adult diapers, then the procedures need to change. I’m sorry but there is no absolute guarantee of safety, and the line has moved too far in the direction of violating the basic rights of people. Should we start body cavity searching people? After all, people can hide things in their body cavities. What do all you “safety triumphs everything else” people suggest we do to address that threat? It’s time to say “enough is enough”.

  21. samonela says:

    Can’t think of a more appropriate time to use the ol’ “You stay classy ________ ” line…

  22. zentex says:
  23. vbowker says:

    I’m neither condoning nor condemning this. However, we need to decide in this country whether or not we want to be safe and with what inconveniences we’ll tolerate to be that way. I don’t have an answer for that.

  24. chemmy says:

    Next up on Consumerist: airline passenger from Michigan complains they had to sit in a pee-soaked seat for their flight to FL.

  25. dush says:

    There was something firm in her adult diaper. I suppose that would raise suspicion.
    But really? Just cause the daughter got upset about it they gave her a pat down for good measure? That’s messed up.

  26. cwlodarczyk says:


    What else is there to say?

  27. mncannon says:

    OMG that is so sad it makes me want to cry. that poor woman. how degrading.

  28. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot says:

    I know everybody in the world absolutely HATES TSA and immediately wants to believe 100% every single story that puts them in a bad light, but it should be realized that sometimes, news outlets make mistakes / the full story isn’t always told, miscommunication occurs.
    From the link:

    “Soon after, Weber said, a TSA agent told her that her mother’s Depend undergarment was “wet and it was firm, and they couldn’t check it thoroughly.” But her mother had no clean diapers in her carry-on luggage and the departure time for the plane was approaching, Weber said.

    “They said, ‘You can get her luggage back to get more out of her luggage,’ but the luggage was checked and I didn’t know how long it would take to get her luggage,” Weber said. “I asked if I could take the wet Depends off and they said yes but said but I had to take her back to the lobby of the airport — to the restroom out of the screening area.”

    She said she and her mother then went to a bathroom and removed the wet diaper, then went back through the screening checkpoint.”

  29. PsiCop says:

    So when did anyone who works for government ever admit doing anything wrong? Did anyone expect TSA would say anything other than it’s proud of what it did?

  30. Jawaka says:

    Honestly I have no problem with this at all. Who the hell wants to spend 4+ hours on a plane with a woman with shit in her pants? I’m sure that the other passengers on the plane would want to thank the TSA.