Spay/Neuter Religious Freedom Issues

[eaglerock814]

Mandatory Spay and Neuter Laws Violate
Right Of Religious Freedom For All Jews

by JOHN YATES
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org

Laws and ordinances that mandate pet sterilization violate the constitutionally protected right of religious freedom for all practicing Jews, not just those who adhere to Orthodox beliefs, The American Sporting Dog Alliance has learned.

This issue was part of the brief filed by dog owners in a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles, which recently passed a pet sterilization ordinance. The court document did not elaborate on the sources for this opinion.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance has independently verified that traditional Jewish law – called Halachic Law – specifically forbids all followers of Judaism from spaying or neutering their pets.

The lawsuit document says the ban on pet sterilization applies to Orthodox Jews. However, the American Sporting Dog Alliance has verified that it applies to all practicing Jews, regardless of how reformed, contemporary or liberal their beliefs.

Jewish law does not prohibit keeping animals, and indeed many practitioners of Judaism own dogs, cats or other household pets. However, Jewish law does raise some complications for pet owners ranging from feeding to confinement. One of those complications, surgical pet sterilization, amounts to an outright ban of the practice.

Rabbi Howard Jachter of Yeshiva University in New York City summarizes the issues for practicing Jews.

“Halacha forbids removal of reproductive organs from humans or animals, whether male or female,” Jachta wrote in the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society.

Jachta also wrote that it was a violation of both Rabbinic and Talmudic principles for a Jew to ask or hire a non-Jewish veterinarian to spay or neuter an animal, or to transfer the animal to a non-Jewish third party to perform the procedure.

Jewish law contains 613 Halachic commandments, many of which are routinely practiced by many if not most Jews. Many regard them as a blueprint to the practice of Judaism. For non-Jews, perhaps the most familiar Halachic commandment is the requirement for eating only kosher food, which is practiced by a large majority of Orthodox Jews and a rapidly increasing number of liberal Jews. Other well-known Halachic commandments are observing the Sabbath on Saturday and not working on Saturday.

The issue of pet sterilization arose last year in Israel, where new laws were aimed at reducing pet populations.

Rabbi Yaakov Ariel, the chief rabbi of the city of Ramat Gan, Israel, and one of the leading rabbis of the religious Zionist movement, strongly opposed spaying and neutering of pets and other animals.

Last June, Rabbi Ariel issued a ruling that forbids practicing Jews from spaying female animals or castrating male animals. He cited Halachic law as the basis for his ruling.

The Torah (Lev. 22:24), a major holy book for practitioners of Judaism, specifically prohibits castrating a male animal of any species, and the neutering of female animals is prohibited by general laws against tza'ar ba'alei chayim (causing suffering to an animal for any reason except to save the animal’s life or cure a dangerous medical condition).

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights, forbids government from infringing upon the religious beliefs of any American. The amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”

Mandating Jewish people to spay or neuter an animal thus would violate the “establishment” clause of the First Amendment, if a person adheres to any part of Halachic law. This potentially applies to all practicing Jews.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, hobby breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by the donations of our members, and maintain strict independence.

PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT

[mountaindogs]

Well, that is certainly a new take. hmmm

[eaglerock814]

Yep!

If I look for a way to defend dog owners, hunters or gun owners, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights always is the first place I look.

Now if we can just convince politicans to do the same before they pass laws.....

[lightonthebay]

I shouldn't get involved in this but, could you reconcile your position for those jews who would have standing to bring that particular issue before the court with the position of the polygamist, in the news, from Texas who are also asking for imunity from prosecution based on their religious beliefs? I believe you will find that you need a much stronger argument to prevail on this issue.

[eaglerock814]

The polygamists are accused of violating child abuse laws and rape laws with children. Courts have generally held that children cannot make up their own minds, and the state plays a protective role.

With religious freedom issues involving adults only, the courts have generally held that the state has no right to interfere except in the most extreme cases (like human sacrifice or cult mass suicides).

In the case of spay.neuter laws, you are talking about a law or ordinance that TAKES AWAY a right that already is being exercised. The laws are commanding people to take an action (spay/neuter) that violates their religious beliefs.

[ezzy333]

You are really picking at straws with this one.

Ezzy

[eaglerock814]

I don't think so.

Try passing a gun ban and see what the NRA does.

[lightonthebay]

I think you should work on defeating the U.S. Supreme Court Case of 'Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). I am sorry guys but I think the following holding in that decision will prevail on this argument. The case involved the use of peyote in religious ceremonies by two Adult Native American church members. I did not shepardize it but I will bet it has not been overruled since 1990. I appreciate your argument and cause but I think you are chasing windmills. Maybe you have other arguments?


"We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs

Page 494 U. S. 879

excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. [emphasis added] As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U. S. 586, 310 U. S. 594-595 (1940):

"Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities."

(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,

"are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

Id. at 166- 98 U. S. 167."

[eaglerock814]

There are many other contrary rulings, such as:

1. Conscientious objector status for the draft.
2. Prayer in public schools.
3. Numerous decisions ertaining to Amish people.

[lightonthebay]

I really don't want to submit a brief on this issue, however, I will say that those alledged situations are distinguishable or incorrect:

Gillette v. U.S. 401 U.S. 437, 401 U.S. 461 (1971) allowed for conscientious objector status because it was a direct (rather than incidental) part of a person's lifestyle prior to making the claims. It was not a recently contrived belief to avoid the law. (no google search or hearsay was required to form the petitioner's belief) The Conscientious objector had to show that he/she had a well grounded history in this belief and could not use it soley because it promoted his/her self interest. Also the the Conscientious objector was not relieved from service to his/her country but rather was forwarded to non-war duties or to some other public service such as the Red Cross.
I further believe that if the facts of these cases were limited to only war positions being available rather than the lesser alternative of non-war duties then the aggrieved would face jail time, execution or front line service.

Prayer in school issues have been addressed numerous times as governement promoting a religion which is again, a direct infringement on personal religious choice and therefore the "establishment of a religion". (a direct assault on the establisment clause) There was nothing incidental about a law which forced or prohibited a student to pray. Therefore, with very rare exceptions school prayer is prohibited because it is deemed unconstitutional. It never prevented the student from voluntarily praying to his or her own God on their own time.
I personaly think a little respect for America's Christain history should have been given more weight but that didn't change the ruling. I would not be offended if I had to endure a muslim prayer in a public school in Saudi Arabia out of respect for their history.

U.S. v Lee 455 U.S. 258 adressed the issue of Amish employers wanting to avoid paying social security tax. Can't do it! The tax was never intended to directly prohibit a religious belief but rather was for the sole purpose of the crown extracting obscene amounts of money from our pockets with no intent to pay it back (personal commentary).

I have no agenda here. As you can see I am opposed to certain rulings on a personal level but I will not waste my time on the implausible unless there is a battle which holds human life at stake. I submit these legal sites so that you can read them yourselves. I think that may help clarify this discussion regarding how the courts will decide in this spay/neuter matter. I wish you luck and I do not want to quell your passion for the subject but the courts will not help you.

[lightonthebay]

Excuse me, it is early in the morning, I meant to say legal cites not "sites". I don't doubt that there are other typos.

[Ayres]

Any right can be infringed by the State, even a fundamental right such as religious freedom. It's all in the test used to formulate the decision. With a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, the test is strict scrutiny. Generally, if I recall the wording correctly, the State must prove that the regulation is narrowly tailored and necessary for a public interest. In this instance, that public interest would be the fact that an unaccountable population of pet animals is not good for the public safety, health and welfare. The crux of the argument is whether a mandatory spay/neuter law is "narrowly tailored" to address that problem, or are there other ways to address the problem with less infringement on the fundamental right.

Having viewed cases like this, I'm going to have to agree with lightonthebay that the argument of an infringement of religious freedom is not going to overturn the regulation.

[lightonthebay]

Thanks for the acknowledgment Ayres. You are correct. However, the strict scrutiny standard probably won't apply here because they must (as you stated) first, show a fundamental right is being infringed. The religious argument is so weak that one is left with the remaining analysis -- is possesing an unaltered pet a fundamental right guaranteed by the US constitution? I think the founding fathers had bigger fish to fry then to establish a right based on this premise.

On another analogous note. Many well meaning but incorrect statements have been submited on hunting forums such as this one, regarding the purpose of the second amedment itself. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting rights. It is there to arm the citizenry against enemies of the republic, both foreign and domestic. It is not about duck hunting! Such misplaced commentary actually weakens our second amendment rights by diminishing its loftier purpose and revealing us as un-informed whiners just as I fear this thread may do without our mitigating comments to the contrary.

Again Ayers, you are breath of fresh air in this discussion.