|courtesy Google images|
Permitting assault weapons, governors refusing to enact the Affordable Care Act, regulating abortions and same sex marriages, to name a few, are all example of issues and instances where the tenet of states' rights was and is invoked as sacrosanct.
Yet, in this case, Republican Senator Steve King has added a section to the proposed farm bill that would prohibit states from imposing conditions on another state's agriculture production thereby effectively allowing big government to trounce California's law and Californians message that basic humane treatment of animals, even food animals, should be required which, by the way, is not inconsistent with the sentiments encoded in the Federal Animal Welfare Act. Yes, the Senator represents Iowa, a major egg producing state, so there is certainly self-interest at play here, so how should this be resolved?
It seems to me that our elected officials should cross party lines and attempt bipartisan action to improve civil rights, guard our constitutional protections and develop policies that foster humaneness and compassion.
Why not, instead, require all egg laying birds to have some comfort rather than trample the law? Why "chicken out" from standing up to special interests whose concerns are not always in the best interests of all?
Why insist that Iowa has a superior right to treat hens their way but California does not.