2007 Senate Bill 23 (Require vets to treat certain dogs without payment)

Legislation watch

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Sen. Denise Harper Angel (D) on January 2, 2007, to prohibit the denial of emergency medical treatment to assistance dogs because of their handler's inability to pay prior to treatment. The bill would establish penalties for persons that deny emergency medical treatment to assistance dogs because of their handler's inability to pay prior to treatment.
- Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 4, 2007.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on February 15, 2007, to remove statutory provisions requiring training certificates for assistance dogs.
- The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on February 21, 2007.
- Reported in the Senate on February 15, 2007, favorably, 1st reading, to Calendar.
Passed in the Senate (37 to 0) on February 21, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on February 22, 2007.
- Referred to the House Health and Welfare Committee on February 23, 2007.
- Reported in the House on March 1, 2007, favorably, 1st reading, to Calendar.
Passed in the House (97 to 0) on March 8, 2007, to prohibit the denial of emergency medical treatment to assistance dogs because of their handler's inability to pay prior to treatment. The bill would establish penalties for persons that deny emergency medical treatment to assistance dogs because of their handler's inability to pay prior to treatment. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on March 9, 2007.
Signed by Gov. Ernie Fletcher on March 21, 2007.

Most Recent Comments

1) Senate Bill 23 [by berniek on December 14, 2006]
FROM THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION:
"(12) Emergency medical treatment shall not be denied to an assistance dog assigned to a person regardless of the person's ability to pay prior to treatment....

Section 2. KRS 258.991 is amended to read as follows:
Any person violating KRS 258.500(2), (3), (4), (5), (6),[ or] (12), or (13) shall be punished by a fine of not less than two hundred and fifty dollars ($250), nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 10 nor more than 30 days, or both."
From the above it is obvious that this legislator is no angel. A totalitarian socialist is a much better label. I guess she will next file legislation mandating free clothing, groceries, housing, etc.
Reply

Line

2) Well intentioned, perhaps, but unconstitutional [by JGault on December 13, 2006]
I would applaud any veterinarian who would provide pro bono services to an assistance dog owner who does not have the ability to pay. Frankly, I doubt there are many veterinarians that wouldn’t provide services to a genuinely needy person. However, requiring a person to provide services without compensation is an unconstitutional deprivation of property. It is no different than a municipality taking part of a person’s real property for a utility easement without paying for its reasonable value. Perhaps a disabled person’s government medical expenses should include some allotment for assistant animal care, but Senate Bill 23, as written, is insane.
Reply

Line

3) 2007 Senate Bill 23 (Require vets to treat certain dogs without payment) [by admin on January 1, 2001]
Introduced in the Senate on January 2, 2007, to prohibit the denial of emergency medical treatment to assistance dogs because of their handler's inability to pay prior to treatment. The bill would establish penalties for persons that deny emergency medical treatment to assistance dogs because of their handler's inability to pay prior to treatment

The vote was 37 in favor, 0 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 0 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation