HF 2813, the bestiality bill, has language that every non-exempt person or group should be concerned about.
The concerning language:
Exemptions: “the practice of veterinary medicine….an accepted animal husbandry livestock management practice…..insemination of animals for the purpose of precreation….accepted practice related to conformation judging.”
“Any touching or fondling by a person either directly or through clothing of the sex organ, genitals, or anus of an animal or any insertion, however slight, of any part of a person’s body or any object into the vaginal or anal opening of an animal except for veterinarian advised care of the animals.”
Notice ALL non-livestock animals are not exempted with the exception for AI and showing.
The very act of grooming and bathing a pet, or other non livestock animal could be construed as bestiality, as ludicrous as it sounds.
The same goes for field dressing a hunt.
“Except for veterinarian-advised care of the animal.”
So does that mean those entities not exempted would go to the veterinarian for “permission” before performing any procedure on an animal? Think how crazy that would drive an already stressed, overworked veterinarian.
Would that drive more of them to throw in the towel due to the increased stress of workload?
A court will rule on the law as written, not what common sense would say. Hence, the great need to change the language.
This bill is also unconstitutional as it does not offer equal protection under the law according to Amendment 14 and the Iowa Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 6 as only a select segment of animal breeders, users, show people are exempted.
As Rep. Holt stated (when speaking about eminent domain) “…does not meet constitutional requirements.”
Fourteenth Amendment: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Iowa Constitution Article 1, Sec. 6: “All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”
I have been told that advisors for the House have claimed this bill is not unconstitutional. I challenge that claim. I would appreciate an explanation of how some groups are exempted and other groups are not, which is probably the majority of citizens, does not constitute unequal protection? Am I missing something in the bill?
Rep. Holt on two different occasions, “…nor were they well thought out in terms of implication in practice of what they would actually do.” (Freedom Watch)
“While well-meaning……..or were they well thought out in terms of the implications if passed.” (Iowa Torch pro-life remarks)
I have also been told that when making laws, it is not possible to include everything in a bill. Why not? That it is the task of the administrative rules committee to define as such. Those details that are claimed but not able to be included would then be included by administrative rules in the code.
Why not just do it to begin with where the public is able to comment? In the name of transparency.
It is time to get this language changed to protect people engaged in legally accepted activities involving animals. Perhaps something to the effect of eliminating the word “livestock” so it reads “accepted animal husbandry management practice”. Also the addition of “accepted animal-related activities, and animal harvesting.” It has also been suggested to eliminate the word ”touching” as there is a big difference of touching vs. fondling.
Then there are these quotes to ponder:
Sen. Weiner, “…can’t support a bill that limits rights.”
Rep. Shipley, “…enact laws in accordance with the Iowa Constitution”, “needs to be consequences when violating constitutional rights.” “…we are all equal under the law”.
Rep. Wills,” …constitution provides the basis for all fundamental rights.”
Rep. Cisneros, “But my commitment is to treat all humans with dignity and promote laws that are fair and equitable regardless of the group they are part of.”
Rep. Wills, ” As we move through the legislative process, I am reminded that we look towards the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution many times a day to ensure that what we are doing fits the criteria of being constitutional. This is important to me because I have sworn an oath to uphold that constitution when I joined the military and again, when I was sworn in to be your state legislator.
Rep. Holt, ” Iowa has a constitution.”
So, a question to ask is, how much weight do the words and oaths carry?
- Betsy Fickel
Garner, IA
