***The Iowa Standard is an independent media voice. We rely on the financial support of our readers to exist. Please consider a one-time sign of support or becoming a monthly supporter at $5, $10/month - whatever you think we're worth! If you’ve ever used the phrase “Fake News” — now YOU can actually DO something about it! You can also support us on PayPal at [email protected] or Venmo at Iowa-Standard-2018 or through the mail at:
PO Box 112
Sioux Center, IA 51250
Advocates for SF 2099, the animal torture bill in the Iowa Senate, are raising quite the cacophony of howls and yowls as the bill is currently stalled on the debate calendar.
Go here to read the bill: Iowa Legislature – BillBook
First off, I do NOT condone the mistreatment of animals, so don’t even go there.
The first part of the bill, defining animal torture, brings clarification. That’s admirable. The second part of raising the penalty to a D felony causes concern. Did you know that would equate to little girls tortured by female genital mutilation to a cat or a dog? Research it yourself.
Did you know that Iowa is NOT the only state to not have a first-time conviction of animal torture as a felony? Research it for yourself.
Then there are these questions that not one single person can or will answer, including the bill’s sponsors.
Specifically, how does it keep animals and humans safer?
Specifically, how does this bill protect humans?
Specifically, how does this bill protect animals?
Specifically, how does this bill act as a deterrent?
Specifically, how is accountability delayed?
Specifically, how does it delay protections?
Specifically, what wrong message does it send?
Specifically, what tools would it give prosecutors that are not already available?
Specifically, how does it provide additional accountability that is not already in play?
Specifically, how are Iowa’s animal protection laws weak?
In order to protect, the crime must first be prevented. After the fact has done nothing to protect. Does it?
Do you know that studies with statements from criminals repeatedly show that stronger laws are NOT a deterrent? It is the likelihood of getting caught. Again, research for yourself. Think about this: what law, regardless of how harsh, has prevented criminal acts?
Then there is the claim that it doesn’t affect agricultural animals. True. Just. Yet. It does set a precedent.
“…..then the owners and multibillion-dollar corporations behind Iowa’s factory farms should be held accountable for the suffering they’re causing.” Gene Baur is president and co-founder of Farm Sanctuary, the world’s premier farm animal sanctuary and advocacy organization, and author of the books “Farm Sanctuary: Changing Hearts and Minds About Animals and Food” and “Living the Farm Sanctuary Life.”
From The Cavalry Group on Oregon’s current PEACE Act IP28: “In practical terms, this would make it illegal to harvest livestock for food or to manage wildlife populations that directly affect public safety, crops, and ecosystems. Even more troubling, IP28 would reclassify standard animal husbandry and breeding practices as criminal acts, including redefining activities such as artificial insemination and castration as “sexual assault” under Oregon law. These practices are widely recognized, veterinarian-guided, and essential to animal health, safety, and genetic management. Rebranding them as sex crimes is not only absurd—it is a calculated legal maneuver designed to stigmatize and ultimately eliminate animal agriculture altogether.”
Some options for this bill. Let it die. Vote no as written. Amend it to remove the felony portion.
The above-listed benefits are repeatedly cited by legislators and citizens alike. Yet not a single one can explain how increasing a penalty will prevent or protect. Not. One. Single. Person.
I highly encourage people to ask questions and do their own research. Do not just swallow a narrative as gospel. That can go for anything. Truth isn’t afraid of questions.
So, please. If anyone can give solid research-based answers to the above questions, by all means, share. We can all learn. If that cannot be done, then it can only be surmised that a favorable vote for this bill is based purely on emotion, not fact, along with the “everybody else does” rationale.
– Betsy Fickel
