Use of 'thoracic stick' in halal slaughter of bobby calves.
Throat cutting associated with halal slaughter of bobby calves fails to sever the vertebral arteries supplying the brain. Such slaughter may be inhumane due to calves recovering from the stun before permanent insensibility, due to blood loss, occurs. Interruption of the vertebral arteries may be achieved by severance of the brachiocephalic trunk or penetration of the heart by the use of a 'thoracic stick', an incision with a knife through the thoracic inlet.
Humane Animal Management
Red meats are derived from ruminant animals. For muscle to become meat, the animal must die. Since all plants and animals on the planet must suffer the same fate of death, the death of the animal cannot be considered as unnatural or inhumane. Some might consider the death of meat animals untimely and therefore worthy of the categorization as inhumane. But, in an existential sense, the animal would never have existed if its meat was not desired by someone. Therefore, it could be said that the consumer is the reason the animal was allowed the “privilege” of life. But, as the saying goes, “the devil is in the details,” whether the meat is produced in a manner considerate of the well-being of the animal is the issue addressed in this chapter. This chapter reviews the literature concerning the science of physiological and emotional stress and production system elements that can be employed to ameliorate stress.
Positive Rights and State Constitutions: The Limits of Federal Rationality Review
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1132 I. STATE CONSTITUTIONAL WELFARE PRACTICE ............................................................. 1144 A. A Mandatory Obligation: The New York Example .................................................. 1144 B. A Typology of Current State Court Decisions .......................................................... 1145 IT. RECONSIDERING FEDERAL RATIONALITY REVIEW IN STATE CONSTITUTIONAL WELFARE CASES ................................................................................ 1153 A. Rationality Review and Positive Rights .................................................................. 1155 B. Rationality Review and Democratic Legitimacy .................................................... 1157 C. Rationality Review and Judicial Finality ............................................................. xi61 D. Rationality Review and Federalism ......................................................................... i166 E. Rationality Review Revisited .................................................................................... 1169 III. TOWARD A NEW STANDARD OF REVIEW ......................................................................... 1169 A. The Need for Judicial Review .................................................................................. 1170 B. Institutional Competence and Welfare Litigation ................................................... 1175 I. State Courts as Fact Gatherers ......................................................................... 1175 2. State Courts as Policymakers ......................................................................... " 179 3. State Courts as Rights Enforcers ..................................................................... 1182 C. A Jurisprudence of Consequences .............................................................................. 1183 D. Why Education and Not Welfare? ........................................................................... i86 E. Implications for Welfare Litigation ........................................................................... i9i IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 1194