‘Sanctuaries’ don’t protect pet animals
It’s a disturbingly common scenario: Officials had to rescue about 120 animals from deplorable conditions at a New Mexico “sanctuary” recently. Many dogs were confined to dilapidated pens with little to no protection from the elements. Cats were locked in a basement with filthy litterboxes. There were dead mice in water containers. Animals were injured, neglected and in need of veterinary care. But we’d heard it all before.
Not a week goes by without reports of animals found in criminally cruel conditions at self-professed “rescues” and “sanctuaries” that claim to “save” animals from euthanasia. Their names, like “Life for God’s Stray Animals,” “Angel’s Gate” and “Heaven on Earth Farm,” belie the hellish conditions in which the animals have been kept.
This February, for example, authorities seized 100 animals, including four dead cats, from a “rescuer” in Kentucky. An animal control official testified to finding dogs crammed into filthy crates; feces and urine throughout the “rescuer’s” home; a lack of adequate food and water; and animals who were underweight, missing fur and suffering from skin conditions, open sores and flea infestations. The animal control officer, who had been on the job for 32 years, said, “(I)t was the worst home I had ever been in during my career.”
That same month, authorities rescued 165 dogs, cats, rabbits, tortoises and other animals from a boarding kennel in Arizona that had “morphed into a rescue.” Many animals were emaciated, ill and forced to sleep on concrete floors with no bedding. Kennels were reportedly covered with feces, and many animals suffered from open wounds, sores and lacerations.
The long-term neglect uncovered at these places is horrifying by any standard. Yet some groups that claim to be “no-kill advocates” are silent when such chilling cruelty is exposed at “nokill” facilities. Meanwhile, they rail loudly against open-admission shelters that make the responsible and humane decision to euthanize some animals.
People who demand an end to euthanasia are driving a growing number of animal shelters to dispense with common sense safeguards, such as basic screenings of potential adopters to prevent animals from ending up in a basement cage; landlord, veterinary and background checks; and reasonable adoption fees. Many shelters are handing out animals for free to anyone who will take them, including hoarders who say they are “rescues.”
“No-kill” proponents are also hard at work pressuring shelters to employ other dangerous tactics in order to avoid euthanasia, including charging people to surrender animals, maintaining months-long waiting lists and turning away animals because there isn’t enough space or because it may be difficult to find them a home. These policies put animals in danger of being dumped on the streets.
Shelters fail animals when they send them anywhere just to avoid euthanasia. While euthanasia may be sad, at least it’s humane. Simply crossing our fingers and handing over vulnerable animals to anyone who claims to be a “rescue” dooms them to a fate that is often far worse than a peaceful death in caring arms.
Teresa Chagrin is the animal care and control issues manager in the Cruelty Investigations Department at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
Ryan Owens Guest columnist
Wisconsinites deserve better. In recent days, powerful interest groups have attacked Gordon Giampietro’s nomination to be a federal judge, largely because he holds orthodox Catholic views. Their religious attacks are deeply disturbing. In this country — and surely in this state — we do not impose religious tests for public office. Gordon Giampietro is qualified. He deserves a hearing and a vote by the Senate to determine whether he ought to be confirmed.
Who is Gordon Giampietro? Gordon is a nominee to be a federal district court judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. He earned his bachelor’s degree (with honors) and his law degree from Catholic University. After law school, he clerked for Judge Rudolph Randa in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. He went on to become a partner at a successful law firm and then served as an assistant United States attorney. Today, he is an assistant general counsel for Northwestern Mutual. These are perfectly appropriate credentials for a federal district court judge. He is qualified for the position.
So why do some special interest groups oppose his nomination? Because he holds orthodox Catholic views.
First, like the Catholic Church and millions of Catholics nationwide, Giampietro opposed the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. That 2015 case held that the Constitution envisions a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. Giampietro disagreed with the decision. He stated that the outcome was immoral. Second, and for similar reasons, he opposed Roe v. Wade, which created the right to an abortion. And, third, he has stated his opposition to birth control because he believes it denigrates the sanctity of life.
While some may disagree with these positions (against same-sex marriage, pro-life, against birth control), they are well within Catholic orthodoxy. In other words, the attack on Giampietro’s views give the appearance of an attack on Catholic orthodoxy itself.
Of course, if Giampietro’s Catholic views disqualify him, then they disqualify all orthodox Catholics from becoming judges. And this would amount to a great many judges. Twenty-six percent of Supreme Court justices since 1953 have been Catholic. Surely, many of them held orthodox views. Hundreds of lower federal court judges have been Catholic. Are we to believe that they were unfit to serve? Surely not.
The attacks are disheartening to many Catholics. They should be disheartening to people of all religious faiths. This takes political opposition to places we honestly shouldn’t go.
Perhaps trying to evade the religious intolerance argument, the groups also purport to oppose Giampietro because he has publicly challenged the Court’s legal reasoning in Obergefell. They claim his opposition reveals that he cannot be an independent arbiter of the law.
As a logical matter, this claim makes no sense. Four Supreme Court justices dissented in Obergefell. If Giampietro’s opposition to the decisions renders him unqualified, the four dissenting justices— nearly half the Court — also would be unqualified.
To highlight further the problems of this claim, it’s worth pointing out that the no-opposition-to-high-court-decisions standard would preclude from judgeships all liberals who opposed the court’s decision in Citizens United or the Heller gun rights decision. Yet the Obama administration was fully comfortable nominating such judges. And they should have been. It is entirely appropriate to nominate people who have examined and debated the law. We want judges who think seriously about the law; sometimes that means criticizing decisions.
In a recent Supreme Court hearing, Justice Anthony Kennedy — the author of Obergefell — said: “Tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of…religious beliefs.”
In our desire to support or oppose nominees, we need to take a breath. Make sure our criticisms are appropriate. Ask whether we’re being fair.
President John F. Kennedy was correct in 1960 to challenge those who discriminated against Catholics. He argued that a person could be president and a devout Catholic —and maintain independence. Judges can, too.
Ryan Owens is a political science professor at the University of WisconsinMadison.