New House Bill Hopes to Save Pets From Domestic Violence

Emotional Blackmail is the last tool for assholes.

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 pets in our lives are family, plain and simple. Why should they not have the same rights to be protected from abuse in a domestic violence situation as a child has being that they are just as helpless.

More info: thepeoplesnews.org...

"USA H.R. 1258Pet and Women Safety (PAWS) Act of 2015
Sponsors: Reps. Katherine Clark (D-MA) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
ASPCA Position: Support
Action Needed: Urge your member of the U.S. House of Representatives to cosponsor the Pet and Women Safety Act to protect victims of domestic violence and their pets.

“Most pet lovers, including me, consider their beloved dog or cat a part of their family. No one should have to make the choice between leaving an abusive situation and ensuring their pet’s safety.”

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.

However, not all is as it seems because the bill excludes animals reared for consumption. We have a long way to go but it's a start.

Bill 50 starts out as :

“The people of Ontario and their government: Believe that how we treat animals in Ontario helps define our humanity,morality and compassion as a society;Recognize our responsibility to protect animals in Ontario” ...

But then goes on to state:

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...

For me? If I become witness to an animal being abused in any way shape or form, you will not see me coming.

Victims of abuse and their pets. A few stories: www.aspca.org...

Piece from the Huff: www.huffingtonpost.com...

And why shouldn't there be laws like this? If we take animals into our homes and ultimately our lives should they not have the same protections as all under that roof?

For those that need a little help in answering the question, the only answer is a resounding...Hell Yes!

Peace

a reply to: jude11

Can you please link to where your first external quote source comes from.

cheers

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

Can you please link to where your first external quote source comes from.

cheers

Edited the OP. Apologies.

Peace

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.

Then you know me as wanting as little intrusion by Govt. as possible.

But just because we already have too much does not negate the need to have laws that protect those that can't protect themselves. That's what laws are meant to do in the first place.

So here's a compromise, take away some BS law and institute this one. Actually, take away about a hundred unnecessary, oppressive BS laws for this one. IMO

Some laws make sense. The rest is up to us.

Peace

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: 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.

Agreed.

Although the law does state spousal, the slant was aimed at women and their pets being protected from men.

But that's a thread for another time.

Peace

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: 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

Agreed.

There are a lot of grey areas and hidden corners/agendas that can come of this.

But I am willing to navigate the crap for the positive in this case.

We absolutely have too many laws that govern our movements and rights as people but in this case I see it as a positive step forward in giving protection to those less able.

If I see animal abuse and can't report it because it falls on deaf ears, what is my only other choice as a pet advocate? Violence.

Don't get me wrong because violence in the name of protection of those that can't protect themselves is always justifiable in my eyes, it would be nice to have at least a little back-up. Where and how far it goes remains to be seen of course.

Peace

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?

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?

We live in a World where it has become apparent that if you can't rely on a law, you make the law.

If this law helps out even a few, I'm all for it.

Peace

a reply to: jude11

lol lady im a dog lover too and not trying to be mean but come on what a waste of time and money .
not just the law trying to be passed but the study they did .
Most women who stay with abusive spouse is because of the kids or its what they are used to or they misunderstand
a beating as love and attention ....................

But wow i didnt leave my husband who beats me because of the pets thats an excuse