Animal Protection Act [LAW'D]

[tmthforu94]

Whoah now, hold on here. There's absolutely no way we can go back to debate guys. I'm sorry. If you like that bill enough the only procedural way we can amend this now is by passing the current bill, having afleitch veto-amend the bill to be like so, and for us to then accept his alterations.

Can we do that?
I expect this to easily pass now, as several voters claimed this was all about "regional rights", and this amendment would take wipe out the arguement. I'm asking that several Senators flip their votes if they support this amendment, so we can get it passed, then vetoed, then repassed under the proposed amendment.

[Badger]

Whoah now, hold on here. There's absolutely no way we can go back to debate guys. I'm sorry. If you like that bill enough the only procedural way we can amend this now is by passing the current bill, having afleitch veto-amend the bill to be like so, and for us to then accept his alterations.

Can we do that?
I expect this to easily pass now, as several voters claimed this was all about "regional rights", and this amendment would take wipe out the arguement. I'm asking that several Senators flip their votes if they support this amendment, so we can get it passed, then vetoed, then repassed under the proposed amendment.

Yeah, I'm game for this as long as a majority of senators and the president are on board.

[Hans-im-Glück]

I think about it and I change my vote to ABSTAIN

[Bacon King]

Senators in favor: Tmthforu94, Bacon King, Fritz, Badger
Senators opposed: Winston, NCYankee, Duke
Senators abstaining: bgwah, Hans
Senators yet to vote: Mint

Voting ends shortly before 10 PM tonight.

[Bacon King]

(A personal superstition of mine is to check Atlasia as little as possible during electiontime, only checking/posting things I make a note of beforehand. Apologies that I forgot to close this vote.)

Senators, the vote has ended with the total as above. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Bacon King]

With vote totals identical to the above, this bill is now on President afleitch's desk.

[afleitch]

This is a fun one.

I am sending it back to the Senate

I decided to have a look at the Constitution on this matter and could see no reason why this could not be accepted as constitutional legislation. However the Senate is charged with the protection of public health. While it is...lamentable that animals are used for the testing of any products, I would be reluctant to disallow testing for the purposes of oral hygeine (toothpaste and mouthwash) and indeed medicinal shampoos and soaps particularly for those with excema and psoriasis etc. Products such as these are not 'non medicinal'; they have a purpose in protecting public health. So I have made a few amendments there mostly to compliment the prescription clause.

I'm striking out Juvenile Jail...I don't want a kid going to the slammer for flushing a fish down the toilet.

I am also agreeable with Badgers amendments to ask the Regions to take on their responsibility in this matter.

My changes in red.


The Animal Protection Act

The state of Atlasia recognizes that it is our duty to protect the welfare of animals. Therefore, the following shall be enforced by virtue of reducing by 10% all federal funding to the regions for environmental protection and wildlife management for any region which does not include the following provisions by 9/1/10.:

1. Atlasia The Region recognizes animal cruelty as the following: a. Wilfull neglect b. Malicious killing c. Beatings d. Animal Fighting ie Dog fight, cock fight for sport.

2. The Mideast Region doesn't recognize the following as animal cruelty: a. Hunting for food or sport as regulated by local environmental protection laws b. Killing Animals for food.

3 No person shall:

   (a) Torture an animal, deprive one of necessary sustenance, unnecessarily or cruelly beat, needlessly mutilate or kill, or impound or confine an animal without supplying it during such confinement with a sufficient quantity of good wholesome food and water;

   (b) Impound or confine an animal without affording it, during such confinement, access to shelter from wind, rain, snow, or excessive direct sunlight if it can reasonably be expected that the animals would otherwise become sick or in some other way suffer. Division (3)(b) of this section does not apply to animals impounded or confined immediately prior to slaughter.

   (c) Carry or convey an animal in a cruel or inhuman[e] manner;

4. Any person under the age of 18, who is found guilty of animal abuse is required to undergo psychological evaluation to determine if the child needs individual or family counseling. If found sane said person shall serve a maximum of 1 year in juvenile jail. Parents or Guardians of said person under 18, are liable for all cost for the evaluation/counseling/fine.

5. If a person over the age of 18 commits animal abuse, said person shall serve a maximum of 1 year in jail and/or 5,000 dollars fine.

6. Except as otherwise permitted by Paragraph 7 below, the use of animals for testing of non-medicinal products related to ordinary grooming and care including, but not limited to cosmetics, non medicinal soaps, perfumes, colognes, non medicinal shampoos, conditioners, toothpastes, mouthwashes, and other toiletries not specifically prescibed by a licensed medical practitioner, is banned.

7. A producer of the items described in Section 6 above may apply to the Atlasian Regional Department of Commerce for a licensed exemption from this rule if the following can be demonstrated:

a) The product or substance in question cannot be feasibly tested or made safe in accordance with existing food and drug testing regulations for human use or consumption by using methods excluding the use of non-animal testing; or

b) Such animal testing procedures are certified by the Department of Commerce to not cause undue, prolonged pain or suffering of the tested animals, and that any animals ultimately exterminated as a result of such testing are specifically bred and raised for purpose of such testing rather than wild caught.

c) For determination of "feasible" pursuant to section 7) (a) above, a non-animal testing procedure that does not raise the estimated wholesale cost of producing said item by over 50% is presumed feasible.

8. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit or prohibit the use of animal testing as otherwise permitted by law in legitimate scientific or medical research not directly related to the commercial development of such products described in Section 6 above.

9. An organization, business or individual proprietor who violates Section 6 above may be fined up to $500k $500,000 per violation.

[tmthforu94]

I am ready to accept those changes.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Senate might want to give consideration to existing legislation: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Commercial_Transportation_of_Livestock_and_Poultry_Act

[Bacon King]

I am ready to accept those changes.

Senators, there is now a vote to accept the President's changes to the bill, specified in reply #81 of this thread.

An AYE vote is a vote to accept the President's changes and return the bill to his desk. A NAY vote is a vote to reject the President's changes, after which the Senate would then decide whether to send the unmodified bill to President Afleitch or to recommence debate on this legislation.

So, Senators, vote!

[tmthforu94]

Aye

[Bacon King]

Aye

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[bgwah]

nay

[Hans-im-Glück]

AYE

[Bacon King]

With five ayes, one nay, and three abstentions, afleitch's changes have enough votes to be approved. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Badger]

AYE.

ftr, Mr. President, it was my and Senator Tmthforu's intent that soaps/shampoos for such conditions as eczema and psoriasis be categorized as "medicinal" under the original bill's language, but your proposed changes are acceptable nonetheless.

[Bacon King]

Okay, this is back on Afleitch's desk.

[afleitch]

x Afleitch

[tmthforu94]

x Afleitch

Thank you, Mr. President.

[Badger]

x Afleitch

Thank you, Mr. President.

[ComeAndTakeIt53]

Section 3B, it seems kinda eco-nutty and liberal to me. Sorry, but the government doesn't have the right to tell someone they can't have a pet because they can't afford it. REPEAL.

[Badger]

Section 3B, it seems kinda eco-nutty and liberal to me. Sorry, but the government doesn't have the right to tell someone they can't have a pet because they can't afford it. REPEAL.

Uh yeah it does. Owning a pet doesn't give one the right to starve it or deprive it of basic shelter or water. That's called "neglect".

As far as "eco-nutty" or "liberal", 3B is taken almost verbatim (other than the addition of "immediately") from Ohio state law. My state is decidedly neither when it comes to restricting farmers' operations.

[President Mitt]

Liberal isn't exactly a very feared word around these parts.