ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Saccone's Libre's Law vote not humane

| Sunday, Feb. 18, 2018, 9:00 p.m.

Last summer, Pennsylvania lawmakers voted overwhelmingly, in a bipartisan effort, to pass House Bill 1238, more commonly known as Libre's Law.

My state senator, Republican Kim Ward, was a co-sponsor of the bill, which changed the animal welfare codes here in Pennsylvania, improving them and increasing penalties for abusers, especially in cases of extreme cruelty and torture. It established rules as to how long dogs can be chained outside in extreme weather, added horses to the codes and was an overall improvement in how our legal system deals with animal cruelty cases.

Only a handful of legislators voted “no” to this bill. Republican state Rep. Rick Saccone was one of them. Several friends told me they have messaged his campaign Facebook page, asking him why, and the only response was a message asking them to “like” his page. He wants me to elect him as my next congressman in the 18th District. Why would I vote for a man who refuses to answer voter concerns?

If you love your animals, I beg you to vote “no” to Saccone on March 13. It's not about Democrat versus Republican, but rather about doing the humane thing.

Pamela Frank


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me