UPDATE: TSA Denies Asking Passenger To Remove Adult Diaper

There’s been a lot of outrage over the past few days over an airline passenger’s allegations that TSA officials had asked her mother, a 95-year-old cancer patient, to remove her adult diaper during a security check.  Now, however, TSA is denying that its agents required the woman to take off her diaper.  Rather, they said, they presented the mother and daughter with several options during the private screening, and the daughter chose to help her mother take off the diaper so that they could make their flight.

The difference, which is small, between TSA’s defense and the passenger’s allegations, that because Jean Weber, the daughter, did not have extra diapers in her bag, she chose to remove the diaper, knowing that otherwise, they would not be allowed to fly.  In a statement released on Sunday night, TSA said,

“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. Various options to proceed through the checkpoint were presented to the passenger and her daughter during private screening to resolve an anomaly discovered during a pat down. Although TSA did not request it, the daughter ultimately chose to remove the adult diaper in a bathroom and return to the checkpoint.”

Weber admits that the officials acted professionally throughout the search.  The issue was that when the TSA agents discovered a wet substance, they insisted on inspecting the diaper.  TSA, probably rightly, is not disclosing more information to protect the family’s privacy, but it does still seem implausible that a 95-year-old cancer patient would be carrying some sort of liquid explosive in a diaper.  While TSA may have been following their protocols, those rules are sometimes humiliating – and even if the agents did not require that Weber remove her mother’s diaper, they seem to have left her little choice.  On the other hand, it also seems odd that Weber and her mother were traveling without extra diapers.

What do you think?  Is TSA’s defense convincing?  Or is Weber right in filing a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security about the ordeal?

Photo from bfishadow’s Flickr photostream.


Terry V.
Terry V.3 years ago

petty arguing is uncalled for

Sonny Honrado
Sonny Honrado4 years ago


Elizabeth Dalbec
Elizabeth Dalbec4 years ago

It was a difficult position for the older woman to be in. She really had no choice other than allowing the search. I too wear diapers, am a cancer survivor, and am an older woman. I do not fly ---because I do not want to be put in such humiliating situations. The question "why were there no extra diapers?? Pretty obvious to those of us in similar situations.. being overwhelmed.. and just forgetting--by the time you remember-it is too late I have done it myself. The mother probably does not have the energy to deal with lawsuit etc.. I would have been the same way. But I am sure my daughter would pursue it.. thank goodness for our caregivers.. I hope there has been a complaint filed and I hope there has been some type action taken an apology would be nice..compensation to the family.. something to help validate the woman's dignity... Because it is the decent thing to do..

Diane L.
Diane L.4 years ago

.......cont).........."if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullsh#^" and/or throw in a little in the way of insults and profanity. That impresses everybody. Yeah, that works.

Diane L.
Diane L.4 years ago

Well, Nyack, where was I rude to you except to point out no need to resort to profanity, nor attack me, personally? Where did I say I was trying to make anyone feel stupid? You do that all by yourself, with no help from anyone. If you'd bothered to read the comments in this article, or the others (there were several), the "victim" (the mother) was interviewed and she said she understood the rules, had no issues. THAT isn't my "assumption", it's restating what was said by those who posted such information.

No, I have no "job", but it's my RIGHT to express my opinions, which you obviously have NO PROBLEM doing, even though they include profanity, rudeness and hostilities. And, just out of curiousity, do you know the defnition of the word "assume"?

Diane O., it matters absolutely ZILCH if someone is a liberal or not. This is an issue which has been beaten into the dirt, and the 95-yr-old "victim" did not feel she'd had her civil rights violated. She understood the reasons for what happened, which seems to have been blown completely out of proportion and not even factual. MY civil rights are violated everytime I'm subjected to the actions of others, actually, including, if you want to stretch it far enough, being subjected to the nonsense of being insulted for disagreeing with people in a Care.2 discussion and having profanity thrown at me by someone too weak in arguments or intelligence to be logical, and that's the usual resort........if you can't "dazzle 'em wi

Diane O.
Diane O.4 years ago

Nyack, that wasn't a nasty remark that was an observation. Read through the comments and then get back to me after you compare comments the liberals post to the comments the conservatives post.

Diane L.
Diane L.4 years ago

Geez, I'd hoped there would no further need to comment, but Nyack, your personal, nasty, hostile attack was un-called-for and no need to resort to profanity, but that seems par for the course with you. I read the article, MONTHS ago, and all the comments afterwards, PLUS the other Care.2 discussions about it. The so-called "victim" never had an issue. It was her daughter, her CARETAKER, who messed up and created the entire issue with the TSA, the media and wanted to file a lawsuit. Her mother never did.

Diane L.
Diane L.4 years ago

Mark S., I realize that. Shows how desperate they get for activity and being able to say they have "X" number of contributors to their forums.

The point is, and this will be my (hopefully) last response to this, do members not bother to read when the article was put out here, and how long ago the last comments were made? So, if the article is a year old, and the last comment was 5 months ago, and it's a "done deal", then WHY comment? Sure, I see the four links below, and get them in my "Daily News" and other Care.2 newsletters. Many of the subjects are ones I realize I'd participated in a very LONG time ago and don't bother even opening the link. If it appears something of interest and not old, I might, but if I THEN see it's old, last comment a year ago, I don't bother commenting myself. Hope that makes sense?

Mark Stevenson
Mark S.4 years ago

Care2 is still providing links to this story. They are the ones that resurrected it.
As far as the TSA goes, I would not believe them or trust them anymore than a poisonous snake.

Diane L.
Diane L.5 years ago

Never ceases to amaze me how bored some people seem to be, to resurrect a 6-month-old discussion that even the "victim" never seemed to have issues with in the first place.