Video & Transcript Research : 'declawing'

Page 2 of 2
NH

New Hampshire 2026 Regular Session

House Session (06/04/2026)

New Hampshire House Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • But we made it through pigs and kangaroos and declawed cats and all kinds of things.
  • but um, we made it through pigs and kangaroos<05:03:11.440><c> and</c> kangaroos and kangaroos and declawed
  • </c> declawed cats and all kinds of things. declawed cats and all kinds of things.
Keywords: 1189, house, all
MA

Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session

Joint Committee on the Judiciary Jun 21st, 2026 at 01:00 pm

Joint Committee on the Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:
  • We were among the first states to ban cat declawing and passed legislation protecting farm animals from
Keywords: 995, all
Summary: The Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a lengthy public hearing on a wide range of civil actions, labor, consumer protection, and animal welfare bills. Chair Lydia Edwards and Representative Michael Day opened with strict testimony rules and time limits, then heard from legislators and advocates on measures including animal-abuser pet ownership bans (S. 1207/H. 1914), a name-change privacy bill (S. 1045/H. 1973), tort claims reform (H. 1724), law enforcement council coverage under the Tort Claims Act (S. 1199), civil rights and qualified immunity-related proposals (H. 1641), employee free speech/captive audience restrictions (S. 1078/H. 1653), consumer protection and civil rights jurisdiction expansion (S. 1041), private right of action for wage theft (H. 1916), gun-owner liability insurance (H. 1836), pseudoephedrine sales tracking (S. 1243/H. 1581), prepaid legal services plans (H. 1612), structured settlement protections (H. 1863), third-party litigation financing disclosure (H. 1861), antitrust reform for small businesses and workers (S. 1038/H. 1982), legal notices in online-only newspapers (S. 1279/H. 1632), and several animal cruelty and protection bills including H. 1938, H. 1949, S. 1277/H. 1934, and H. 1764. Testimony was largely supportive from bill sponsors and advocacy groups, with repeated themes of protecting vulnerable people and animals, improving access to justice, and updating outdated laws. Supporters of the animal bills argued for stronger possession bans, broader cruelty citations, and civil removal tools to prevent repeat abuse; opponents or conditional supporters raised due process and enforcement concerns, especially around warrantless seizures and requiring retail or shelter staff to check registries. On the labor and consumer side, supporters said the antitrust bill would curb monopoly power and help small businesses and workers, while opponents warned it could destabilize competition and burden successful firms. The employee free speech bill was backed as a response to captive audience meetings, and the wage-theft bill was presented as a way to let workers or organizations pursue claims when individual employees are afraid to come forward. Several public officials and association representatives testified on the law enforcement and civil rights bills. Chiefs of police supported adding law enforcement councils to the Tort Claims Act, saying it would close a liability gap for regional mutual-aid collaborations. But police representatives opposed changes to the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act and qualified immunity-related provisions, arguing the federal system already provides a workable forum and that expanding liability could increase costs, reduce morale, and worsen recruitment and retention. On the consumer/civil rights bill, Senator Collins and a veteran described an out-of-state assault case that they said showed the need for Massachusetts to let residents seek redress at home when rights are violated elsewhere. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the hearing itself; the committee mainly received testimony and questions. Several witnesses indicated they had submitted written testimony or proposed amendments, and some bills drew requests for favorable reports while others were explicitly opposed unless amended.
NH

New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session

House Session (03/27/2025)

New Hampshire House Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • knows what they're doing from the state, and the fact that arguments were made that we can't ban cat declawing
  • arguments were made that we can't<05:36:48.760><c> ban</c><05:36:49.200><c> cat</c><05:36:49.558><c> declawing
  • </c><05:36:50.558><c> because</c><05:36:50.798><c> it's</c> can't ban cat declawing because it's can't
  • ban cat declawing because it's very<05:36:51.360><c> rare</c><05:36:51.958><c> and</c><05:36:52.120>
Keywords: 1189, house, all
TX

Texas 89th 2nd C.S.

Governmental Oversight, Select Jun 4th, 2026

Governmental Oversight, Select

Transcript Highlights:
  • a city that repealed an ordinance related to, I think it was cat required or prohibition on cat declawing
Keywords: 1184, house, all
NH
Transcript Highlights:
  • I mean, none of us wanted to hear with the cat declaw bill.
Keywords: 928, house, all
Summary: The committee met in a work session on several environmental bills, beginning with HP 152, which would prohibit the sale and use of adhesive-based rodent traps. Members discussed whether the bill should be amended to allow professional pest control use while restricting retail sales to the public. Testimony and member comments focused on animal welfare concerns, the relative humaneness and effectiveness of glue traps versus snap traps, consumer education, enforcement difficulties, and whether the bill should instead be limited to professionals. No vote was taken on HP 152 during the discussion. The committee then turned to HB 171, establishing a moratorium on new landfill permits. Representative Gruber distributed an amendment shortening the proposed moratorium from five years to three years as a compromise. Members supporting the moratorium said it would give the Department of Environmental Services time to update rules and reflect recent landfill-siting reforms, while opponents argued that three years was too long, could tie the hands of a future legislature, and might be difficult to pass in the Senate. Others noted the House, Senate, and governor had each discussed different lengths of moratorium, making the bill a likely bargaining position in later negotiations. Throughout the landfill discussion, members emphasized that the three-year version was intended as a middle ground between a one-year proposal associated with the governor and a six-year Senate bill. Several members said the moratorium reflected years of bipartisan work on solid waste and landfill policy and would help create time for new rules to take effect. The transcript provided does not show a final committee vote or other action on HB 171 during this segment.