New Farm Bill Has Surprise For Dogfighters and Cockfighters!

Google Images

Deep within the new farm bill is an amendment to the federal animal fighting prohibition law (7 United States Code 2156) which is effective immediately. 

It is now a federal felony to bring a minor (under the age of 16) to a dogfight or cockfight. So often these fights are treated as family affairs which expose and desensitize young children to acts of bloody violence and animal cruelty.  Such exposure can impair a child from developing the ability to empathize with other living things - a characteristic typical of both adult and juvenile violent felony offenders. It is also not uncommon for perpetrators to stash contraband in children's diapers for safekeeping. This change does not preclude law enforcement from still charging the adults with local relevant child endangerment laws.

The revision also makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly attend a cockfight or dogfight!

So cockfighters and dogfighters - SURPRISE!

Disgusted With Iowa Republican Steve Kings' Farm Bill Amendment

courtesy Google images

UPDATE: The nasty King amendment is finished for now!! http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-california-egg-farm-bill-20140127,0,3486002.story#axzz2rdoQPvmW      You were heard. 





The time for Congress to pass the farm bill has come and we must make sure that Republican Senator Steve Kings’ amendment, Protect Interstate Commerce Act (PICA), which would strip states of the right to regulate its own agricultural interests by requiring products coming into a state to comply with the standards of that state, is removed from the bill.

For example, the egg producers in Kings’ home state of Iowa would not have to comply with California’s law that egg farmers give egg-laying birds room to stand, spread their wings and move around, and that all eggs sold in California must come from farms that meet California standards.

King assertion that California is the only state that would be impacted either indicates his ignorance of the issue or his willingness to misstate the facts to assist his constituent egg producers. The language in the amendment could not only nullify agricultural protections enacted by individual states, but, could, according to the Washington Times  “have far-reaching implications, nullifying a large spectrum of state and local laws concerning everything from livestock welfare to GMO labeling, restrictions on pesticide and antibiotic use, horse slaughter, child labor, fire safe cigarettes, shark finning, Christmas trees, and even the sale of cat and dog meat.”   

14 law professors from around the country stated in a letter to the legislative conferees that "should the Amendment pass, there is a significant likelihood that many state agricultural laws across the country will be nullified, that public health and safety will be threatened, and that the Amendment could ultimately be deemed unconstitutional.”

That said, what happened to the republican platform of the sanctity of states’ rights? How odd that in the areas of assault weapons, health care, same sex marriage, abortion and marijuana there is a deafening clamor to defer to states and block the intrusive federal government from acting. But when Kings’ constituent egg producers might not be able to sell in California – the republican, King, is all about running roughshod over the states and the importance of federal control.

Kings’ position is disappointing and obviously self-serving as it appears to convey a platform that encourages the discarding of principles, factual statements and that acts adversely to the best interests of those in vulnerable positions whether human or animal. 

Which party is that?

Hens will Suffer in Push for Big Government over State Sovereignty

courtesy Google images

When California voters passed Proposition 2 which requires egg farmers to give egg-laying birds room to stand, spread their wings and move around, then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) added an additional requirement that all eggs sold in California must come from farms that meet California standards- a decree in keeping with the republican mantra of less federal government and more state sovereignty.

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.

Why?




.