ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUPS AND THE FARM BILL: HSUS'S TWO-FACE STANCE ON STATE'S RIGHTS
Animal Rights Groups and the Farm Bill Blog Series
Part II: HSUS’s Two-Face Stance on State’s Rights
In Part 1 of our “Animal Rights and the Farm Bill” blog series, we highlighted the importance of Iowa Congressman Steve King's Protect Interstate Commerce Act (PICA) that was presented as a much needed amendment to the 2013 Farm Bill. The PICA amendment (PICA) would reinforce the authority the U.S. Constitution gives to Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
Congressman King’s amendment is intended to protect the rest of America from anti-agricultural extremists and radical animal rights schemes that ban products from certain states that don’t meet arbitrary labeling or segregation standards. For the past two years, HSUS has advocated and lobbied for what has been called a "one-size-fits-all" farm takeover bill – widely known as the "Egg Bill."
We've discussed the severe ramifications of implementing HSUS's "Egg Bill" in previous posts.
Wayne Pacelle, C.E.O. of HSUS, recently made this contradictory statement regarding the U.S. House Agriculture committee’s adoption of Congressman King's PICA amendment,
“...we are deeply distressed by the House committee’s support for the amendment to eviscerate the powers of the States to establish and maintain laws governing food safety, animal welfare, environmental and worker protections. This is a threat to every consumer and to every animal in American agriculture, and it is an attack on the 10th Amendment to the Constitution and an almost unheard-of power grab by the Congress.”
Did you catch the hypocrisy?
On one hand, Pacelle's asking for a complete federal takeover of America’s egg production standards, and then, not two weeks later, he's quoted saying the PICA amendment is an "almost unheard-of power grab by the Congress."
An “unheard-of power grab" is precisely what HSUS was calling for in the “Egg Bill.”
The PICA amendment reasserts Congress’ authority given to them by the U.S. Constitution to prevent state protectionism. Contrary to Pacelle's lies, the PICA amendment doesn’t "eviscerate" state's rights, it upholds them.
Pacelle knows what's at stake, and that's his life's work:
“We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States. We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.” - Pacelle, Full Cry Magazine
So it’s “ok” to trample state’s rights by passing crippling federal mandates that would harm America’s food producers and consumers in every state, but it’s a tragedy when Congress takes action to uphold their duty to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States?” Pacelle thinks he deserves the ultimate authority and final say on issues concerning animal care standards. He only seems to champion state’s rights when he isn’t getting his way.
What do you think about Pacelle’s two-faced stance regarding state’s rights?
Stay tuned for Part 3 of our Animal Rights and the Farm Bill Blog Series: The PICA Amendment and the U.S. Constitution.