It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Pets and Women Safety Act, or the PAWS Act, is a response to studies that show as many as one third of domestic violence victims stay with their abusive spouse, because they fear their pets will also suffer violence if they leave. Supporters of the bill say abusers commonly threaten to harm pets as a way to control their spouse, and that this threat can compel some people to stay in these abusive relationships. www.theblaze.com...-938004
The bill, from Reps. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), would expand federal law to require protection for the pets of domestic violence victims, and would create a grant program to help victims find appropriate shelters for their pets. It would also encourage states to boost their own protections for cats, dogs and other animals that could be at risk of violence.
Over 200 million farm animals each year (Statistics Canada figures – 2006 data) have no protection against cruel treatment. Some of the generally accepted agricultural practices that are exempt from prosecution include: 1) the use of gestation and farrowing crates for breeding and nursing pigs that thoroughly confine the animals. Growth promoters and antibiotics are required in massive doses because the cramped cages cause stunted growth, and the build-up of the animals’ waste causes chronic infections and respiratory illnesses.
2)the removal of male pigs’ teeth (tusks) without anesthesia.
3)castration using crushing devices or rubber rings, with no anesthesia.
4)the use of battery cages for laying hens that hold 4 chickens each, which confine the birds so tightly they cannot stretch or spread their wings. www.animalalliance.ca...
originally posted by: Metallicus
Jude, I often support you and join you in your love of pets, but I disagree with you on the need and relative benefits of this law. The truth is this will be used more for Government intrusions into our lives than it will be to protect animals. We don't need to give Government any more excuses to meddle in our lives.
originally posted by: nerbot
a reply to: jude11
No apology necessary.
I was just curious as to why so much effort would be put into protecting animals and women with no mention of the domestic abuse men suffer.
Reporting this using the term "people and animals" would lend much more credibility wouldn't you think?
Sucks to be just a man these days where our needs and problems get so blatantly ignored or misreported.
originally posted by: SaturnFX
In spirit I agree with protection of pets, but practically, this can be a can of worms
who determines if a pet is abusive. Person X may say to authorities that person Y abuses their pets, and gets them removed when the reality is person X is just saying that because person Y loves their pets and wants to be a total jerk.
Seems more a weaponized vendetta law than a practical safety
originally posted by: ketsuko
If person A threatens to abuse the pet to try to make you stay ... why don't you just take the pet?
And frankly, I don't trust the ASPCA anymore. They have an anti-pet anti-food animal agenda that they mask in their anti-abuse campaigns.
Not only that, but what happens when person A leaves and then charges person B with abuse because person A conveniently decides the chicken or duck is a pet but person B decides they're for the pot?