Republicans want to ban pets from domestic violence shelters
www.motherjones.com
The budget proposal is the Trump administration's latest attack on services supporting abuse survivors.
  • SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world
    2·
    2 hours ago

    MAGAs are fucking psychopaths. They delight in cruelty, and I’ll wager they’re just as cruel to the people in their lives.

    • Noxy@pawb.socialEnglish
      13·
      2 days ago

      Who do you mean by “they”? The nazi fucks are themselves the ones in charge.

    • Stabbitha@lemmy.world
      125·
      2 days ago

      If we read the article, we learn:

      Tucked inside the 1,200-page appendix to the White House’s budget request to Congress is a proposal to eliminate a grant program, funded by the Agriculture Department and administered by the Department of Justice, that provides domestic violence shelters with money to support survivors’ pets. Advocates say the program, known as PAWS, helps fill a critical gap despite its relatively small budget of $3 million

      So we see that it actually is a budget issue, nobody’s issuing a directive saying animals are banned at these shelters – the headline is misleading.

      We also see that the proposed budget cut is $3 million, which works out to almost a whopping 2¢ per taxpayer in the US.

        • grysbok@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          1·
          2 hours ago

          I’d happily give 25 times that to help domestic abuse survivors and their pets. To put that princely sum in context: 50¢ could buy you a full-sized candy bar 30 years ago.

        • breecher@sh.itjust.works
          8·
          1 day ago

          That’s not the point. The Republicans are not doing this to save money. They are doing this for ideological reasons, namely that domestic violence is fine and there shouldn’t be any domestic violence shelters, because women should be subjugated to their husbands no matter what.

      • Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world
        8·
        2 days ago

        Thanks for adding context and hard evidence to the discussion. Fuck them twice as much for doing it this way. It’s the same amount of sabotage and half the accountability.

  • Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world
    421·
    2 days ago

    A government and people that cared about protecting abused people would demand that shelters accept pets.

    In my jurisdiction pets were ruled to have custody rights meanwhile the land of the free wouldn’t elect a woman and won’t stand up for each other. Enjoy your Handmaid’s Tale, stop trying to push it on other countries.

  • RaptorBenn@lemmy.world
    84·
    1 day ago

    Id worry more avout the fact that you live in an authoritarian state, that’s decided to make an enemy of… let me check my notes… the rest of the planet.

      • RaptorBenn@lemmy.world
        15·
        24 hours ago

        Yes, your allowed to do whatever, but when the house is burning down, most wouldnt stop to complain about the decor.

          • RaptorBenn@lemmy.world
            13·
            20 hours ago

            But your not, your complaining about the toaster not working while the house is burning down.

            • Turret3857@infosec.pubEnglish
              2·
              19 hours ago

              Can I not be mad about the toaster and the house at the same time? Is there something about humans that makes it so we can only care about one issue at a time?

              And youre comparing people being denied the right to keep their animals (some would refer to this as “property”) when they need to leave an abusive household, to a toaster.

              • RaptorBenn@lemmy.world
                12·
                11 hours ago
                1. Yes, but generally youd wait until the fire was out and a bunch of other thing before even considering that.
                2. Its a relatice comparison, if you really think what i said equates to “pets are as important as toasters”, then i dont think youre qualified to have this discussion with me.
                3. I think vets should have every right to keep and maintain pets at government provided housing.
                4. Demonising me, and willfully misinterpretting me, because you disagree with what ive said, tells me there isnt any furthee productive recourse to be had with you.